Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-30-2015, 07:41 AM
 
14,249 posts, read 17,872,157 times
Reputation: 13807

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
I'm not going to say you have given poor advice but it should not be the law, LE should never be able to question your actions if you shoot someone that has unlawfully entered your home. That last thing you should be in the back of your mind is if fleeing is an option before you shoot and am i going to be charged with murder if I do.
No ... the reason you try to get out - if possible - is because, if an intruder is armed, there is a chance that you will get shot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-30-2015, 07:47 AM
 
3,201 posts, read 4,395,535 times
Reputation: 4441
hell naw

if you break into someones home, you should be shot

do not enter someones home w/o permission

if you break into my home looking to rob or cause harm, you are catching 2 hot ones to the chest... if you survive you have a permanent reminder of what you did
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2015, 07:57 AM
 
12,073 posts, read 23,155,986 times
Reputation: 27188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny View Post
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.

The criminal created the risk of harm as soon as he decided to break into someon'es home. What kind of wold do we live in when a homeowner is expected to watch someone carry his property out of the house?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2015, 08:05 AM
 
19,685 posts, read 10,019,189 times
Reputation: 13035
In Missouri, you can use deadly force to protect your family, your property, your neighbor's family and your neighbor's property. Just the way it should be.
Every criminal who is shot, is one less to hurt someone else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2015, 08:17 AM
 
3,216 posts, read 2,075,843 times
Reputation: 1861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggy001 View Post
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.
The castle doctrine takes the guess work out of it for you.

Here is Florida's version:


Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.013
Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if
a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle;


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2015, 08:20 AM
 
Location: Texas
44,256 posts, read 64,165,784 times
Reputation: 73921
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny View Post
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.
How, pray tell, do you determine that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2015, 08:25 AM
 
Location: Texas
44,256 posts, read 64,165,784 times
Reputation: 73921
And, yes.
Every thief is an evil person.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2015, 08:33 AM
 
Location: Between Heaven And Hell.
13,541 posts, read 9,967,984 times
Reputation: 16930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny View Post
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.
If you know the mind of a criminal, you'll know that not killing is not a safe option. Lots of criminals are stealing to feed an addiction, and are full of drugs all the time, injuring will not stop them, plus, you're likely to get sued if you don't kill them. Most are also part of a group, gang, whatever, and are likely to involve them in revenge attacks, which is more likely if they survive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2015, 08:38 AM
 
14,249 posts, read 17,872,157 times
Reputation: 13807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlandochuck1 View Post
The castle doctrine takes the guess work out of it for you.

Here is Florida's version:


Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.013
Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if
a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle;


Before I respond, let me make it perfectly clear that I do think that home owners should be able to use deadly force against intruders. So I am trying to come at this issue from the homeowners perspective and my intent is both to explore the legal risks to the homeowner after the event as well as the physical risks to the homeowner if the intruder(s) is armed. This echoes the discussion at the recent CCW class that I took ....

Looking at Florida's wording, the key term is 'forcibly'. If an intruder enters through an open slider or an unlocked door, does this meet the definition of 'forcibly'?

I served on a Grand Jury a while ago and we did have one case of an intruder in a person's home. That intruder was drunk and didn't really know what he was doing. The homeowner punched him, threw him out and called the police. We did indict the intruder and there were no charges against the homeowner. The comment from several on the jury was that the intruder was lucky that a punch was all he got. So I think that - depending on the state and depending on the city - juries will tend to side with the homeowner. But the law being what it is, you just never know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2015, 08:46 AM
 
3,216 posts, read 2,075,843 times
Reputation: 1861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggy001 View Post
Before I respond, let me make it perfectly clear that I do think that home owners should be able to use deadly force against intruders. So I am trying to come at this issue from the homeowners perspective and my intent is both to explore the legal risks to the homeowner after the event as well as the physical risks to the homeowner if the intruder(s) is armed. This echoes the discussion at the recent CCW class that I took ....

Looking at Florida's wording, the key term is 'forcibly'. If an intruder enters through an open slider or an unlocked door, does this meet the definition of 'forcibly'?

I served on a Grand Jury a while ago and we did have one case of an intruder in a person's home. That intruder was drunk and didn't really know what he was doing. The homeowner punched him, threw him out and called the police. We did indict the intruder and there were no charges against the homeowner. The comment from several on the jury was that the intruder was lucky that a punch was all he got. So I think that - depending on the state and depending on the city - juries will tend to side with the homeowner. But the law being what it is, you just never know.
I think the key word here is "unlawfully". I believe to enter someones home that you do not know, without permission is considered unlawful.

This is the essence of the "Castle Doctrine".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top