Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just meant that what she did was an example of what you described. It is not obvious from my link, but the nearest house to hers was way too far for her to run to, especially carrying the baby. Also, if you do try to escape, you have no way of knowing if there is another intruder outside, as there was in the case in the link.
Generally, the difference between Trespass and Burglary is "intent to commit any theft or any felony". And that is where, legally, it gets tricky. In law, you have to 'reasonably believe' that the perp had that intent. But will a jury agree with your definition of 'reasonable'? And a defense of justification doesn't work for Trespass.
Again...in many states the law clearly states that anyone breaking into a home, vehicle, or business is automatically assumed to have "intent" to commit a violent act. No reasonable language in it. The only time reasonable comes into play in Oklahoma (I cant speak to other states) is if the person didn't break into something but you have reasonable fear for your life or someone elses life. Example would be a store robbery or something like that. The robber entered the store legally but when he pulled the gun and you shot him then question of was it reasonable to believe someones life was in danger will be investigated. Thats why at least in Oklahoma its much more tricky to get involved in some type of shooting like that, if you do, you had better be certain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrolman
2. Every projectile exiting the muzzle of your firearm has LAWSUIT written all over it. I've seen this happen over and over, affecting law enforcement, as well as civilians. Anyone can sue anybody for anything. You can bet your bottom dollar the the criminal (if he/she lives) or the surviving family will file a lawsuit against you.
I agree with your point but just thought I would point out this bit from the Oklahoma statutes.
Quote:
F. A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes charging or prosecuting the defendant.
H. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection F of this section.
State-specific legalities aside, the ethical question for me is whether or not the killing can be legally justified as being necessary in the prevention of physical harm to someone else. Killing an intruder who is coming at you, or another person, in a menacing way should be deemed a justified homicide. Shooting someone in the back because the're running out the door with your laptop should be deemed murder.
State-specific legalities aside, the ethical question for me is whether or not the killing can be legally justified as being necessary in the prevention of physical harm to someone else. Killing an intruder who is coming at you, or another person, in a menacing way should be deemed a justified homicide. Shooting someone in the back because the're running out the door with your laptop should be deemed murder.
Again...in many states the law clearly states that anyone breaking into a home, vehicle, or business is automatically assumed to have "intent" to commit a violent act. No reasonable language in it. The only time reasonable comes into play in Oklahoma (I cant speak to other states) is if the person didn't break into something but you have reasonable fear for your life or someone elses life. Example would be a store robbery or something like that. The robber entered the store legally but when he pulled the gun and you shot him then question of was it reasonable to believe someones life was in danger will be investigated. Thats why at least in Oklahoma its much more tricky to get involved in some type of shooting like that, if you do, you had better be certain.
I agree with your point but just thought I would point out this bit from the Oklahoma statutes.
The Arizona language is:
13-413. No civil liability for justified conduct
No person in this state shall be subject to civil liability for engaging in conduct otherwise justified pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
I think they should be prosecuted. Unless the intruder was trying to physically harm the home owner and put them in danger, there is no need to shoot someone. People shoot too quickly these days and they always shoot to kill. No one should die for trying to steal a TV or jewelry or whatever. Go to jail, yes, but killed no.
How would you know whether or not they were going to harm you? Ask them? What a sheltered life you must have led.
I already said that if your life is danger, TRUE danger, feel free to shoot them. If guns are so amazing at protecting people in their homes then, no one should be getting raped or murdered right? Especially since gun ownership is at the highest rate in US history. Oh, but it still happens daily.
And **** all of you who are belittling my point of view because I am a stay at home mom. That is a real ******* thing to do and insults do nothing to prove your points either. I don't sit around doing nothing all day. I don't watch TV all day, in fact we DON'T watch TV at all and I don't even subject my kids to that Disney garbage. I only get online when my baby needs me to hold him while he naps. Something I'm happy to do. I guess the rest of you commenting here are busy "working" right??
You guys are assuming a lot about me and making very wrong accusations.
Are there evil people that deserve to be shot and killed for doing nasty horrible things? Absolutely! But not every theif is an evil person that deserves to die. Good people do bad things sometimes. I am just trying to offer another perspective that people do want to think about, because shooting someone is easier.
AND I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO FEELS THIS WAY!!! I've had many reputations on my posts. I'm just the only one who will say it.
By the time you figure out "TRUE danger" if it was, you won't be figuring anything out! Everyone doesn't have a gun yet and open carry without a permit, etc. will increase the danger for criminals.
You opinion isn't being questioned because you are a stay-at-home mom. You seem to have a complex about that.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf I don't want to take the chance being in the 7% that the criminal assaults. Also, about 1/4 of the homes have people home when the criminal enters the home. These statistics are older but all that I could find.
Seriously, anyone breaks in my home when I am here, there chances of getting out alive aren't very good.
I know that people who have friends and relatives that are thieves are often "soft" on this but one's effort in this case would be better in getting the friends and relatives to do the right thing in the first place. Have them google and they will find lists of burglars that have been shot and killed when entering the house of another.
Good grief, the solution to avoid getting shot and/or killed is to avoid becoming a criminal and entering someone's home where you don't belong. Seriously, as a stay-at-home mom, you have a big responsibility to your children to make sure they are safe if an intruder comes in. Sometimes, they steal children!
Majority of people support the right to defend yourself and that has to be done BEFORE you are dead.
State-specific legalities aside, the ethical question for me is whether or not the killing can be legally justified as being necessary in the prevention of physical harm to someone else. Killing an intruder who is coming at you, or another person, in a menacing way should be deemed a justified homicide. Shooting someone in the back because the're running out the door with your laptop should be deemed murder.
Thats great for ethical debate but applying that to a law dealing with a home invasion type scenario would leave the door open for the victim (homeowner) to be held liable. Lots of circumstances can happen that can make it appear that the criminal was attempting to flee and posed no further threat.
Personally I wouldn't shoot someone clearly running for the door, but their intentions had better be clear from the start of the confrontation. But I am not going to sit back and judge someone who was scared and not thinking clearly and happened to put a bullet or 2 into some criminals back that was running for the door.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
