I think the mistake that some people make is interlacing the definition of what burglary is and justified use of deadly force. They can be mutually exclusive. The definition of burglary in this case has the wording "with consent". Great, but the case (if any) will not be about whether burglary was taking place or not. It will be about justifiable use of deadly force.
Mekender was gracious enough to provide that in the research as well.
This, under this section has all the pieces of a justified shoot under the law. Unlawful entry of a dwelling and the shooter believes that forcible entry has occurred.
Mekender was gracious enough to provide that in the research as well.
SECTION 16-11-440. Presumption of reasonable fear of imminent peril when using deadly force against another unlawfully entering residence, occupied vehicle or place of business.
(A) A person is presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to himself or another person when using deadly force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury to another person if the person:
(1) against whom the deadly force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if he removes or is attempting to remove another person against his will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(2) who uses deadly force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring or has occurred.
This, under this section has all the pieces of a justified shoot under the law. Unlawful entry of a dwelling and the shooter believes that forcible entry has occurred.