If it were up to me, yes I would like to be able to shoot someone who tries to escape who just broke into my home....
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
This is a piece on a man who held his invaders at gunpoint for police to arrive. Just a bunch of kids in this one, but say this happened to one of us, by let's assume an average size male of plenty age, and we decided we didn't really want to kill anyone but wanted to hold them for the cops to arrive. And there are two invaders. If they tried to escape, could you gun them down? Probably not right? So either physically take them on and restrain them for a citizens arrest or let them go right? What do you think?
Link Removed
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
You do that.Sounds like you might not be stable enough to even OWN a firearm...
I'll pass this along to the ATF so they can clarify your question for you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I agree, but every situation can have many variables. We do have castle doctrine where I live. Thanks for your input and glad I could spin your wheels a little.This is too situation dependent to specify one line of action. It also depends on the state laws, whether there's a castle doctrine or not.
For an intruder being held trying to escape, shooting them for doing so wouldn't mesh with laws I'd not think. This is why I go back to my personal rule: I don't draw my gun if I'm not legal to fire it.
This is a good question to pose and we all should consider the potential for it to happen in our own homes and how we would respond vs maybe how we should respond. Wayyy too many things that can change during such a situation to ponder every last possibility. If someone is brazen enough to break in a home, they're going to have a different attitude about what they're willing to do to "get away with it." If they didn't come in with the sole intent to kill, trying to hold them at gunpoint may change their mind about being wiling to kill and cause them to behave differently, introducing yet more things that the homeowner has to judge "on the fly" when deciding how much force is necessary and legal.
Thanks for the great question in this post! It'll keep my brain's hard drive whirring at least the rest of the day
Agreed, we are better off shooting first, asking questions later.I'm not holding anyone for the police. If they run they run. If they're still a threat when my gun comes level I shoot.
Just out of curiosity.... could you cite and/or link to the actual black letter law regarding "castle doctrine" where you live? I ask because sometimes folks will think that the words "castle doctrine" means they can shoot someone who breaks into their home with impunity when some state's laws have language similar to ... "under certain circumstances" or language that specifies what conditions must be present... that give the prosecutor and/or judge a great deal of leeway as to whether a shooting inside the home is justified or not.I agree, but every situation can have many variables. We do have castle doctrine where I live. Thanks for your input and glad I could spin your wheels a little.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
Good point about the cost. Something to consider--is that "valuable" worth enough to cover legal expenses, lost wages, civil suit judgments, etc., that I'll incur from this shooting?. . .
You still seem to be hellbent on shooting a thief, not understanding the legal implications that follow. George Zimmerman has a $2.5 million debt in legal fees, and he was found not guilty. Do you have anything of value in your home that would justify the risk of running up a multi-million Dollar debt and getting crucified in the media?
Anyway, I will be waiting for you posting a GoFundMe contribution request to your legal funds, such as this one: My friend is being held for murder after defending his home. You may note that I posted the same video in that thread. Stupid is as stupid does. You can take the advice of a lawyer now or later. The advice later will be regarding a plea bargain.
Agreed, we are better off shooting first, asking questions later.
Dude you are pathetic. I live in Mississippi if you care to look up the castle doctrine. Happy Sunday!
Thanks for the reply. Very informative and thorough.Not sure what set you off with bofh's first post in this thread, but, though I find the hypothetical scenario too vague to attempt an answer to, I have thought while reading this thread that there are several states where it would be *legal* to fire on a fleeing felon, especially in one's home, and I'd say it appears that MS is one such state. I believe my state, Alabama, most likely is one too. But the problem is that answering the *legal* question isn't adequate for most people to hang their hats on. Most people want to know what the *right* thing to do is, not just the *legal* thing, and quite often, no lines intersect in the arc of either of those evaluations.
I think Castle Doctrine laws are a great thing. I'm glad that they have proliferated to the extent they have in recent years. What I get from most of them, including MS's, is that legally-speaking, the person claiming defense as the basis for opening fire on another human being has the *legal* presumption of justification in the eyes of the law. That presumption carries with it several benefits in MS, including immunity from civil action and restitution of legal expenses if the shooter must defend himself in either civil or criminal court and is found justified. That's pretty strong as Castle Doctrine laws go, but a presumption is still no guarantee, and neither is immunity if/when one is not found justified. Even under a fairly objective statutory presumption of justification to shoot, one must still fall under the more subjective test of the "reasonable person" doctrine, which seeks to put everyone responsible for deciding how to charge, try, or convict a given defendant in the position of being a reasonable person and deciding what they'd do in the same circumstance. MS is no exception. There are five allusions to reasonableness in the link above.
I find Reba's and bofh's positions on not shooting under "iffy" justifications to be quite reasonable. Speaking only about legalities, I find it quite likely that many prosecutors, judges and juries in MS would deem it reasonable under the statute linked above to shoot any one at any time who had feloniously broken and entered a dwelling. "Likely" and "many" are words that demonstrate the subjective nature of the "reasonable person" doctrine though. Reba and bofh would virtually never get in any legal trouble maintaining their position as thus-far stated in this thread. Thomas0792 might for shooting someone who was running away, even though the statute does have provisions for fleeing felons, but those provisions are diluted to a lesser or greater degree by the reasonable person doctrine. I personally have a hard time putting my life in other "reasonable person's" hands, so bereft of such types is the human race that it seems nearly a suicide mission to engage in.
There are legal questions, moral/ethical questions, and questions that may or may not overlap either category. I just know this: I ain't gettin' in trouble for letting someone run away, while I might for shooting them while running away even though my Castle Doctrine also gives me the presumption of justification for several other-than-deadly-or-great-bodily-injury evaluations.
The absolute best way to arrive at an answer to the OP's original question is to go through competent, professional shoot/don't shoot training, and take the word of the experts whom you paid good money to advise you about when it's right/not right to shoot another human being. I categorically reject the notion that "we're better off shooting first, asking questions later." Whether "legal" or not, if it ain't right, it ain't right. Shoot/don't shoot drills, combined with the expert advice I paid in advance for, juxtaposed against the subjective nature of the reasonable person doctrine, have all taught me that shooting someone who is running away from me, just ain't right.
Blues
Is this post directed to me since it was I who originally asked, politely and without any insults I might add, for cites and/or links to the actual black letter law concerning castle doctrine where you live? If so then be advised my opinion of your credibility, and the worthiness of any of your future posts, will not be favorable.Dude you are pathetic. I live in Mississippi if you care to look up the castle doctrine. Happy Sunday!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
Thank you Reba.
Is this post directed to me since it was I who originally asked, politely and without any insults I might add, for cites and/or links to the actual black letter law concerning castle doctrine? If so then be advised my opinion of your credibility, and the worthiness of any of your future posts, will not be favorable.
No, towards bofh or whatever.Is this post directed to me since it was I who originally asked, politely and without any insults I might add, for cites and/or links to the actual black letter law concerning castle doctrine where you live? If so then be advised my opinion of your credibility, and the worthiness of any of your future posts, will not be favorable.
...In addition to the burglar having concealed weapons and drugs that are deadly on contact on him, Hepatitis C and other diseases are additional threats. Hepatitis C is skyrocketing right now.
Just an FYI: Hep C is among the slowest-acting "deadly" diseases known to man. As of somewhere between 2012 and 2014, it's now curable to boot. Not that anyone would want to get it, or should be cavalier about getting it, but the cure is 100% effective, so no one who contracts it nowadays will suffer even a tiny bit of damage to their liver assuming they get diagnosed even as long as five years after they've been exposed. Many people won't suffer any damage within 10 years.
Every cop in the country has better-than-decent insurance. Even if their department or agency didn't cover a needle poke or getting bit by someone who was infected or whatever, their insurance would demand that they get tested in as soon a time-frame as it takes to be visible in a blood test after the injury, and they'd be cured probably within six months of it, certainly no more than a year afterwards. There'd be no lasting effects, in fact, probably not even any perceptible symptoms, so it's hardly the deadly disease that it once was, or that the above link makes it out to be for people who aren't at risk for reinfecting themselves through continued IV drug use. Ostensibly, that would include most cops.
Blues
ETA: A homeowner or basic citizen who gets poked by a needle or bitten by a Hep-C-infected criminal probably can't be counted upon to know they should get tested for Hep C and other diseases as soon as practicable, so the point bofh was trying to make would still apply as a good reason for such people to keep their distance from intruders, especially bleeding ones.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?