Intruder

[Robgmn]

Umm.... Yeah, not really.

Every use of force law that I've ever read includes an allusion to the "reasonable person" doctrine of determining when it's justified to pull the trigger. No self defense law is based upon what can be proved after the fact about the rightness or wrongness of what the intended victim thought about the perceived threat. The facts as-determined by scrutiny of the totality of the evidence after the fact is what's used, not simply one factoid of which direction the perpetrator was moving when the victim first pulled the trigger. Granted, if there is evidence of it not being a justified shoot, a jury or judge will be the "reasonable people" determining whether the threat perception was reasonable or not, but "running away" is in no way a black and white, unequivocal disqualifier for an intended victim to still reasonably feel threatened. There is no way for a victim of burglary or rape or assault to know whether moving away from them by the perpetrator is "truly running away."

The wording of the law is what counts, not the wording of the phrase. And several Castle Doctrine laws allow for the presumption of a threat in the case of burglary and other crimes. That presumption remains in force for the entire span of time that the crime is being committed, at least in AL, and I know for a fact that AL's CD law is not unique in that regard.

And when one states something as a "fact," they should be able to back it up with a cite. The relevant AL law to which I refer says:



The period being emphasized for what should be obvious reasons.

That's what you call a fact, Jack.

Blues

To poke a hole in just ONE of your reasons for using deadly physical force against someone who is running away:

Alabama Statute - First Degree Burglary
(a) A person commits the crime of burglary in the first degree if he or she knowingly and unlawfully enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling with intent to commit a crime therein, and, if, in effecting entry or while in dwelling or in immediate flight therefrom, the person or another participant in the crime:
(1) Is armed with explosives; or
(2) Causes physical injury to any person who is not a participant in the crime; or
(3) In effecting entry, is armed with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument or, while in the dwelling or immediate flight from the dwelling, uses or threatens the immediate use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument against another person. The use of or threatened use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument does not include the mere acquisition of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument during the burglary.
(b) Burglary in the first degree is a Class A felony.
- See more at: ALA CODE § 13A-7-5 : Alabama Code - Section 13A-7-5: BURGLARY IN THE FIRST DEGREE

Second Degree Burglary
(a) A person commits the crime of burglary in the second degree if he or she knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building with intent to commit theft or a felony therein and, if in effecting entry or while in the building or in immediate flight therefrom, the person or another participant in the crime:
(1) Is armed with explosives; or
(2) Causes physical injury to any person who is not a participant in the crime; or
(3) In effecting entry, is armed with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument or, while in the building or in immediate flight from the building, uses or threatens the immediate use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument against another person. The use of or threatened use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument does not include the mere acquisition of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument during the burglary.
(b) In the alternative to subsection (a) of this section, a person commits the crime of burglary in the second degree if he or she unlawfully enters a lawfully occupied dwelling-house with intent to commit a theft or a felony therein.
(c) Burglary in the second degree is a Class B felony.
- See more at: ALA CODE § 13A-7-6 : Alabama Code - Section 13A-7-6: BURGLARY IN THE SECOND DEGREE

Third Degree
(a) A person commits the crime of burglary in the third degree if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime therein.

(b) Burglary in the third degree is a Class C felony.

Please point out where any of these include "running away" as a type of burglary, and being able to use deadly force against someone who is running away.
And, don't throw the idea out again of "you don't know if someone is running away".
The discussion is about someone who is "running away". It's been stated and is known that the person is "running away", otherwise the term would not have been used.

 

[BluesStringer]

To poke a hole in just ONE of your reasons for using deadly physical force against someone who is running away:

Alabama Statute - First Degree Burglary
(a) A person commits the crime of burglary in the first degree if he or she knowingly and unlawfully enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling with intent to commit a crime therein, and, if, in effecting entry or while in dwelling or in immediate flight therefrom, the person or another participant in the crime:
(1) Is armed with explosives; or
(2) Causes physical injury to any person who is not a participant in the crime; or
(3) In effecting entry, is armed with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument or, while in the dwelling or immediate flight from the dwelling, uses or threatens the immediate use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument against another person. The use of or threatened use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument does not include the mere acquisition of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument during the burglary.
(b) Burglary in the first degree is a Class A felony.
- See more at: ALA CODE § 13A-7-5 : Alabama Code - Section 13A-7-5: BURGLARY IN THE FIRST DEGREE

Second Degree Burglary
(a) A person commits the crime of burglary in the second degree if he or she knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building with intent to commit theft or a felony therein and, if in effecting entry or while in the building or in immediate flight therefrom, the person or another participant in the crime:
(1) Is armed with explosives; or
(2) Causes physical injury to any person who is not a participant in the crime; or
(3) In effecting entry, is armed with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument or, while in the building or in immediate flight from the building, uses or threatens the immediate use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument against another person. The use of or threatened use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument does not include the mere acquisition of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument during the burglary.
(b) In the alternative to subsection (a) of this section, a person commits the crime of burglary in the second degree if he or she unlawfully enters a lawfully occupied dwelling-house with intent to commit a theft or a felony therein.
(c) Burglary in the second degree is a Class B felony.
- See more at: ALA CODE § 13A-7-6 : Alabama Code - Section 13A-7-6: BURGLARY IN THE SECOND DEGREE

Third Degree
(a) A person commits the crime of burglary in the third degree if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime therein.

(b) Burglary in the third degree is a Class C felony.

Please point out where any of these include "running away" as a type of burglary, and being able to use deadly force against someone who is running away.
And, don't throw the idea out again of "you don't know if someone is running away".
The discussion is about someone who is "running away". It's been stated and is known that the person is "running away", otherwise the term would not have been used.

We're talking about the justified use of force, and you post unrelated statutes about burglary. Here's a hint: You won't find anything in the burglary statutes about when it's justified to use deadly force during a burglary, because those statutes are only defining various degrees of burglary, and not defining justifiable use of force during a burglary. That is accomplished in the sub-section I already posted:

Link Removed

A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

....(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

The period being emphasized for what should be obvious reasons.

Apparently everybody but your contrarian ass understands the reason for the emphasized period.

And I'll throw out any ol' idea I wish to throw out, which wasn't just casually "thrown out" to begin with. The "idea" to which you claim was stated unequivocally was no such type of statement:

From what I understand then is that if the intruder is retreating/running to exit my house and his back is to me and not shooting, then the threat is considered to be no longer present.

He was saying that what he understood "then," meaning in response to what bofh had said to him, when taken with the rest of that sentence, misstated (IMO) what bofh had actually said. Others came in saying unequivocally that someone running away could not still be considered a threat, and I gently corrected that wrong, unequivocal assertion by saying that's not always necessarily true. If a guy whose already broken into my occupied home sees me with a gun or runs when I order him to hug the floor, and is running towards another occupied part of the house, he's a freakin' threat to whomever is occupying that part of the house, and he's a threat to me too because he may well be able to take other occupants hostage or use them as human shields so he can shoot the one guy he already knows is armed in the occupied home he already broke into.

Don't bark out orders about what "ideas" I can talk about. Who the ____ do you think you are?

Blues

 

[Robgmn]

You unknowing half-wit.

YOU post the statute of using deadly force during BURGLARY in an attempt to justify using deadly force with someone is RUNNING AWAY (a major part of the discussion).
I provide legal proof of what BURGLARY is in the state we are discussing, hence a legal explanation of when you can use deadly force during a BURGLARY.

As I stated (and you so vehemently disagree), the LAW does not allow for you to use deadly force against someone who is RUNNING AWAY.

Stop trying to divert and obfuscate.
You suck at it.

 

[BluesStringer]

You unknowing half-wit.

YOU post the statute of using deadly force during BURGLARY in an attempt to justify using deadly force with someone is RUNNING AWAY (a major part of the discussion).
I provide legal proof of what BURGLARY is in the state we are discussing, hence a legal explanation of when you can use deadly force during a BURGLARY.

As I stated (and you so vehemently disagree), the LAW does not allow for you to use deadly force against someone who is RUNNING AWAY.

Stop trying to divert and obfuscate.
You suck at it.

You're still wrong. On every single "point" you attempt to make. Wrong tactically, and wrong legally. There are no pat answers to hypothetical gun fights.

Blues

 

[Robgmn]

You try so hard, yet cannot prove yourself right, no matter what you do.

In a hypothetical fight, the situation is created solely by the people discussing the hypothetical.
THEY MAKE UP THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
When you are creating the circumstances, you certainly CAN provide "pat answers" to what will happen BECAUSE IT'S NOT REAL.

Go ahead and believe what you WANT to be reality, as opposed to what IS reality.
It's a great game plan.

 

[BluesStringer]

You try so hard, yet cannot prove yourself right, no matter what you do.

In a hypothetical fight, the situation is created solely by the people discussing the hypothetical.
THEY MAKE UP THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
When you are creating the circumstances, you certainly CAN provide "pat answers" to what will happen BECAUSE IT'S NOT REAL.

Go ahead and believe what you WANT to be reality, as opposed to what IS reality.
It's a great game plan.

There are no pat answers to gun fights then. The law only considers what a "reasonable person" would conclude in the same or very similar set of factual circumstances, and I absolutely did prove that statement true by citing the law in my own jurisdiction. One person who refrains from firing at a fleeing burglar will find out sometime after the act of refraining whether that was the right decision or not. If the burglar keeps moving away and is never seen again, great, the occupant made the right decision.

Someone who fires at a burglar as they're moving in the opposite direction from them had sho' 'nuff better have a reasonable reason for doing so that whoever the body of "reasonable people" judging his actions after the fact can accept as such, but that's true whether the burglar is moving away from or towards the armed occupant of the occupied dwelling that the burglar made the mistake of invading in the first place. And always, 100% of the time, deadly force laws for the jurisdiction being considered, count either for or against the occupant, depending on the reasonableness of his state of mind when he decided to open fire. That's why the Alabama statute is not unique when it references what a shooter "reasonably believes" the circumstances he's responding to complies with one of the qualifying crimes for deadly force to be "presumed justified." "Presumed justified" by whom? By the reasonable people who make the final determination according to the law, that's who. It could be a "reasonable" cop who shows up to draw the chalk lines. It might be the "reasonable" prosecutor. It might be the "reasonable" judge in the ensuing case. Or it might be the "reasonable" jury at the end of that case. But here's a fact for you, Rob; the "presumed justified" part of our deadly force law in a home-invasion of an occupied dwelling where the legal occupant(s) open fire on the invaders will never be determined by the section of law that you posted that simply define the act of burglary or the degrees/levels of different types of burglary. Only the act of burglary in any degree combined with the act of the occupant shooting the burglar(s) will ever be scrutinized for reasonableness that only fall under the use of deadly force statutes, period.

Blues

 

[XD40scinNC]

There are no pat answers to gun fights then.

Shooting someone in the back when they are running away is NOT a gunfight.

 

[BluesStringer]

Shooting someone in the back when they are running away is NOT a gunfight.

During a burglary of any degree in my state, that depends entirely upon what they're doing as they're "running away" and what threat they might reasonably pose to other legal occupants of the business or dwelling in the direction in which they're "running." It could also depend on what they do when they get to where they're "running away" to. Are they still on the property and loading their loot in their vehicle, or did they jump in the vehicle and race off the property as fast as is humanly possible? Facts of the incident matter WAY more than where on the criminal's body a bullet (or more) struck.

There is no caveat in the law I cited that says one must verify 100% what the "runner's" actual intentions are before shooting. It doesn't even require that they be armed. It allows the legal occupant to be "presumed justified" in using deadly force for certain types and degrees of crimes, and burglary in any degree is one such crime.

I don't know why you guys are even arguing the point with me. The law I'm relying on has been cited and quoted, and it is quite clear and unequivocal that a presumed threat justifies the use of deadly force in the case of burglary. The law(s) that Rob posted don't even apply to the use of deadly force or Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground laws at all, they only define the various degrees of burglary and leave deadly force where it belongs - in the statutes addressing the use of deadly force, period.

I'm not advocating for shooting anyone in the back, I'm only trying to answer the question as close as is humanly possible to the accurate truth according to the law in my state. It is no more accurate to say that someone running away from you is never a justifiable target to open fire on than it is to say that they always are. "Justifiable" is itself a moving target dependent upon what the laws of any given state specify. "Justifiable" is circumstance and fact-dependent, and that the criminal is facing you while either standing still or advancing is hardly the only circumstance that qualifies a shooter for being ruled justified in several jurisdictions in this country.

Blues

 

[XD40scinNC]

Hope you have a good lawyer in your contacts list...

 

[BluesStringer]

Hope you have a good lawyer in your contacts list...

Yes, of course, I can feel your concern for my well-being from here.