WHAT?!

[rhoggman]

Law or no Law... if you break into to someone's home in the US you have a decent probablitly of being shot.

I really cannot understand why anyone would be held accountable for the death of an intruder.

Since when has it been ok to break into another's domicile?

The day I am afraid to defend myself in a reasonable fashion is the day I move deep into the woods. Then if you break into my home, no one will ever know the difference except for the cyotes who will benefit emensley.

 

[rhoggman]

The door being open or closed does not in any way change the perception of threat posed by the intruder. The end.

Would you rather have the blood puddle on your floor, or outside the door?

 

[General Geoff]

outside the door, easier to clean up. Otherwise it makes no difference.

 

[rhoggman]

Seriously....

Just out of presense of mind, I personally would wait for the intruder to ACTUALLY GAIN ACCESS into my home before adminstering 2 doses of lead.

Not out of any moral inclarity, but strickly to prevent myself from getting locked up. Waitning for them to come into your home eliminates a whole lot of questions.

Now, that being said, if the intruder had a visable weapon in hand... BANG BANG.. Wrapped In Sacloth....

 

[Sam1911]

Nope. You aren't going to bait me into doing legal research for free.

As an outside observer to this debate let me point out that no one is baiting you to do legal research for free. No one has hired you to defend them or stands to gain anything but clarity and understanding from this exercise.

You've made some statements of legal opinion. Others have made statements in opposition to yours. They have backed theirs up with case citatitons. If you want to support your point, it stands to reason that you would do the same. If you don't care to back up your point with some relevant case citations, just say so.

The only person to gain from you supplying a case citation is you, and all you stand to gain is credibility for your argument as presented on an internet forum. That might be worth the effort to you or it might not.

If your credibility is not worth defending with a reference to a case then please stop arguing.

-Sam

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Geoff: "The door being open or closed does not in any way change the perception of threat posed by the intruder. The end."

Now that's just funny. Do you leave your door wide open?

 

[WC145]

Geoff: "The point stands that shooting said drunken man who is breaking into your home would be justified whether or not you waited for him to open the door, and in those areas where for whatever reason it would NOT be legally justified, waiting for him to enter the home would not change that. So in essence, your "enjoy prison" remark would apply to your preferred actions as well."

Wrong again, counsellor. Waiting for him to enter and approach you in a threatening manner changes a potential threat into a real threat, and is precisely that point at which self-defense becomes a defense, here.

So, where does "What a reasonable man would believe" enter into this? And, along with the subjective nature of any situation like this, where someone's fears and feelings are in question, how do you weigh whether or not someone truly feared for their life? Who is trying to break in, their mental state, and their intent are meaningless because the homeowner's had no way of knowing any of that, their choices and responses were based on HIS actions and nothing more. THAT'S what matters here, the old "But for" clause - BUT FOR his banging on the door and breaking the window to gain entry, BUT FOR his refusal to heed their warnings - none of this ever would have happened. They did not go looking for him, they gave him plenty of warning and opportunity to stop and leave, they were doing nothing but quietly residing in their home.

Like I said before, based on what the homeowner's knew at the time, I would have done the same thing. It was a good shoot and you know it, stop trying to twist it into something else because, with the knowledge you've gained AFTER THE FACT, you THINK you'd have done it differently and won. Until you're walking in their shoes, you'll never really know what you'd do. And, hopefully none of us will ever be in the position to have to make the decision they did.

 

[rhoggman]

As an outside observer to this debate let me point out that no one is baiting you to do legal research for free. No one has hired you to defend them or stands to gain anything but clarity and understanding from this exercise.

You've made some statements of legal opinion. Others have made statements in opposition to yours. They have backed theirs up with case citatitons. If you want to support your point, it stands to reason that you would do the same. If you don't care to back up your point with some relevant case citations, just say so.

The only person to gain from you supplying a case citation is you, and all you stand to gain is credibility for your argument as presented on an internet forum. That might be worth the effort to you or it might not.

If your credibility is not worth defending with a reference to a case then please stop arguing.

-Sam

I think that calls for a "BANG BANG... Wrapped In Bacon"

 

[Shytheed Dumas]

Okay Duke, you keep speaking of Mass; a lefty freakshow to say the least. This incident took place in Colorado. Lets set aside state politics and ask you the most important question:

What is RIGHT here? No legal garbage, but what is right? Is right/wrong based on 2 seconds of breaking glass in high distress? Is duty to retreat "more right" than the Castle Doctrine laws? When somebody threatens me, am I morally corrupt if I don't magically and correctly assess their intentions, degree of intoxication, preferred drug, and capacity to do harm in a matter of seconds?

Forget law school and your duty to defend and speak up to what is right when an innocent person is faced with a potential life/death situation.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Sam: "If your credibility is not worth defending with a reference to a case then please stop arguing."

Not going to do that.

The case Ohm cited does not stand for what he thinks it does. I could tell that just by reading the part he pasted into his post.

Here's the MA statute, btw:

http://www.savetheguns.com/self_defense.htm#Massachusetts

GENERAL LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS
Chapter 278: Section 8A. Killing or injuring a person unlawfully in a dwelling; defense.


Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

It is important to note that this law is only available to occupants of dwellings. An occupant is an individual who has some sort of possessory interest in the property in question, such as a tenant or an owner. A dwelling is a place where an individual is temporarily or permanently residing and which is one's exclusive possession. Generally this means that a dwelling has to be a permanent structure such as an apartment, a home, a summer cottage or, under some circumstances, a hotel or motel room. A dwelling CANNOT be a motor home, a tent, or a boat because these structures are not permanent and stationary.

If an intruder enters a dwelling and is NOT threatening death or serious bodily injury, the occupants have no right to use deadly force. If you are prosecuted for your use of deadly force in your home, the burden is on you to provide evidence that you acted in self defense. If you CANNOT provide evidence that you acted in self defense, then the Court will not instruct the jury that you have acted in self defense. And you may spend a very long time in prison for defending yourself.

Massachusetts law takes the position that if you are not within the walls of your home, you MUST make every attempt to escape or avoid all confrontation with an aggressor before your right of self defense arises. The basic difference between self defense inside your home and outside your home is that inside your home, you have no duty to retreat. Outside your home you must retreat if you can do so safely.

 

[Hairballusmaximus]

I can honestly see both sides. I have a disabled daughter who can neither walk or talk and I absolutely would not take a chance on whether he was drunk, faking or anything else. But it would be an extremely bad day for me as I dont relish the thought of having to kill anyone for any reason. I dont own anything thats worth taking a mans life but I will under any circumstance defend my family with deadly force REGARDLESS OF THE LAW!! No law is going to stop me from saving my family if I feel their lives are threatened. I feel for the homeowner, he has to live with what happened and I am sure, justified or not he feels bad about it.

Hindsight is always 20/20

 

[General Geoff]

Not going to do that.

Your credibility just jumped right out the window.

 

[rhoggman]

I can honestly see both sides. I have a disabled daughter who can neither walk or talk and I absolutely would not take a chance on whether he was drunk, faking or anything else. But it would be an extremely bad day for me as I dont relish the thought of having to kill anyone for any reason. I dont own anything thats worth taking a mans life but I will under any circumstance defend my family with deadly force REGARDLESS OF THE LAW!! No law is going to stop me from saving my family if I feel their lives are threatened. I feel for the homeowner, he has to live with what happened and I am sure justified or not he feels bad about it.

Thats Right...

Once you have mentally established the whole bad guy good guy thing, killing him would not be the issue, it would be the memory... especially if you have never had to do things like that in the past.

I can almost garuntee you would not have guilt.

 

[LWGN]

Rush: "I have never read such a patently false statement in all my life."

You must have a pretty low tolerance for risk. Are you handicapped?

Most women are "handicapped" with respect to size, strength, and speed against a male intruder. There is a reason they call firearms "equalizers" - they help to even out the advantages and disadvantages of natural physical endowment. But guns are weapons, not shields. Having a gun doesn't mean you are safe. It would be the height of folly for a person who was responsible not only for his/her own safety but for the safety of a spouse and/or child (as in the Colorado shooting) to allow an obvious threat inside the home when it was legally within his or her power to prevent it. What if you miss on your first shot or have a misfire and are now faced with a physically superior assailant within reach of you? I would find that an unacceptable level of risk.

 

[gdcpony]

I can't believe this has gone on this long! WOW!
I could care less about any law in any state when the lives of my family are at stake. Another USMC policy- Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. That applies to my kids as well.
Duke, get your head on straight. I have no idea of your background, but I think you need to look at some things. The shooter held back, he warned, he notified authorities. There was not other step in the ladder of force once a violent action (the breaking of the glass) on the part of the assailant led him to believe harm was going to befall him.
I think the shooter probably will have some nightmares to deal with now. However he can console himself with the fact that he will be held by the one he protected when he wakes. Better than lonely nights filled with nightmares of what could have happened after the assailant got in.
Here:
You just came over to watch my kids so the wife and I could go on our first real date in 3 years (pathetic I know). You are now responsible for their well being until the next morning. At 0113 someone is trying to get in. They try the front, the back, the garage, and go back to the front window and bust it in. You have my .257 Roberts in hand, my oldest is on the phone but the sheriff will be 8 more minutes, my younger daughter is crying at the man to leave, and my son is (as always) crying. What do you do? Play nice? Shoot?
Play nice- My two daughters are raped and all three of my kids die along with you. Of course, the girls aren't found for a few days as that is as long as the man had them for.
Shoot- You just killed a drunk man who lived a few houses down and always seemed so nice, And all the world hates you save for those typing to you right now and my wife and I.
Make your choice.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Dumas: "What is RIGHT here? No legal garbage, but what is right? Is right/wrong based on 2 seconds in high distress? Is duty to retreat "more right" than the Castle Doctrine laws? When somebody threatens me, am I morally corrupt if I don't correctly assess their intentions, degree of intoxication, preferred drug, and capacity to do harm in a matter of seconds?Forget law school and your duty to defend and speak up to what is right when an innocent person is faced with a potential life/death situation."

I think it is wrong to blow away a hand reaching into a window. I don't think it is wrong to shoot an assailant inside one's home. But I think it is preferable to avoid the shooting and get him out of there another way, if practical. Some on this forum are so bloodthirsty it's creepy. I doubt they've ever used firearms in civilian self defense. If they have, and enjoyed it so much, they ought to be evaluated for committal.

 

[rhoggman]

Lawyer..... Schmoyer.....

I would like a little info on how many home defense cases in the US actaully make it to indictment. My guess would be not too many. Regardless of what the law says it would be hard (IMO) to get convictions.

Brings to mind a case in Ohio where a guy killed an off duty cop (brother in law), for choking his wife & sister..... Both guys were drinking.... Crazy 911 call.... NO INDICTMENT

Reason being IMO is that if you are ingadged in a life threatening situation where an idiot is threatening a life. Juries usually will not convict.

 

[230RN]

So now I gotta get my stopwatch and my crystal ball.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

You're not too far off, rhoggman. That's why, even though under ME law the CO situation would not be a justified shoot, I called it a toss-up, as a ME jury would be unlikely to convict on those facts. However, in other states, including MA, he WOULD be convicted.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

huh i'm just an old man looking for peace i'd have left via front door took g/f with me. i have fantasies i'd like to fulfilol getting to shoot someone isn't one that gets me all tingly. course at my age i've largely lost the need to prove anything. i wonder if the folks in the house werte just so overwhelmed by what was going on it just never occured to them . "when all you got is a hammer everything starts to look like a nail" i learned to try to see at least 3 options and chose the one that got ME the best end result

 

[gdcpony]

I think it is wrong to blow away a hand reaching into a window. I don't think it is wrong to shoot an assailant inside one's home. But I think it is preferable to avoid the shooting and get him out of there another way, if practical. Some on this forum are so bloodthirsty it's creepy. I doubt they've ever used firearms in civilian self defense. If they have, and enjoyed it so much, they ought to be evaluated for committal.

Watch where you take this. You might not like the replies.
I'm off to work. Be back at 0430 to see if you survived Duke. Bye!

 

[Daniel1120]

He WOULD be? But he isn't, this is CO, please quit trying to divert everyone to MA law. Its a smokescreen and everyone knows it.

And he wouldnt be conviced, he would be tried. I would expect you to know the difference. You can't speculate whether or not a jury would convict.

 

[WC145]

You're not too far off, rhoggman. That's why, even though under ME law the CO situation would not be a justified shoot, I called it a toss-up, as a ME jury would be unlikely to convict on those facts. However, in other states, including MA, he WOULD be convicted.[/QUOTE]

You make a lot of assumptions for a lawyer. You are ASSUMING that it wouldn't be ruled a justified shoot in Maine and you are ASSUMING that the homeowner WOULD be convicted in Mass.

Now, I'm no lawyer, but I would think that one of the first things they teach you in law school is never to ASSUME what anyone is going to do ESPECIALLY a jury.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Daniel, I only brought up the other states when Geoff claimed that "in nearly every state" the shooting would be justified. When I produced counterexamples disproving that, I was told, "but this is CO." Of course it is. But my point is that the homeowner is lucky he was in CO when he did that. Elsewhere, he'd be jailed. And even in CO, I think what he did was ethically wrong.

Cassandrasdaddy, I think you are right. I think they developed situational tunnel vision, with firing the gun as the only viable option in their imagination.

 

[Sato Ord]

Once you have mentally established the whole bad guy good guy thing, killing him would not be the issue, it would be the memory... especially if you have never had to do things like that in the past.

Sorry dude, having done it before doesn't make it any easier, trust me on that one.

I can almost garuntee you would not have guilt.

It's a type of guilt, but you can make friends with it. It still wakes you up in the middle of the night sometimes though. You never forget.