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'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.
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
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?
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.
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;
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.