dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
I'm sending Brent over this evening. Round 7pm...![[devil2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/017.gif "Devil2 [devil2]")
I'm bettin' on Brent!!!
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Question
- Thread starter Ericman
- Start date
I'm bettin' on Brent!!!
While I'm not a lawyer, and realize that there are other sections of the law, plus case law and appeate decisions that aren't cited here, I don't see anything here that indicates such a presumption. What I see is that the defense requires that
- the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense, and
- the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death, and
- reasonable means of defense.
Ken
Scrivener:
I'm with Ken on this. I agree that there is no duty to retreat when you are in your own home. Of course, nothing I posted ever suggested there was a duty to retreat, so I'm confused as to why you brought it up.
Nor do I see anything in the law that says that someone who is unlawfully in your dwelling can be presumed to be an immediate threat of death or grave bodily injury.
This is the standard castle doctrine, not the "make my day" law that exists in Colorado where anyone unlawfully in your dwelling is presumed to be a deadly threat.
So I would appreciate it if you would more fully explain your reasoning.
I'm with Ken on this. I agree that there is no duty to retreat when you are in your own home. Of course, nothing I posted ever suggested there was a duty to retreat, so I'm confused as to why you brought it up.
Nor do I see anything in the law that says that someone who is unlawfully in your dwelling can be presumed to be an immediate threat of death or grave bodily injury.
This is the standard castle doctrine, not the "make my day" law that exists in Colorado where anyone unlawfully in your dwelling is presumed to be a deadly threat.
So I would appreciate it if you would more fully explain your reasoning.
Last edited:
"Castle Doctrine" is, first and foremost, "no retreat." The implication is that anyone who breaks into an occupied home (note the "unlawful intruder," to expressly exclude domestic disputes). What makes it NOT the "shoot first," general "no retreat" law is that it applies ONLY in the home; not wherever you may lawfully be.
The law uses the term "reasonably," which is standard language. However, you need to place it in context - an unlawful intruder IN your home. When you are facing that threat, the proverbial reasonable and prudent person can (and probably will) conclude that they and/or their family is facing an imminent threat of death/severe bodily harm.
I hope that puts it all in perspective.
An overly simplistic version of the above discussion - for me - deals with spiders.
I loath the 8-legged freaks.![[frown]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/003.gif "Frown [frown]")
If one drops around me in the house, its dead. Simple. My space, my rules.
Outside, its free to be itself.
Inside my house, an unlawful intruder would find the same rules apply. Afterall, as they say, dead men tell no tales.![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
RJ
I loath the 8-legged freaks.
If one drops around me in the house, its dead. Simple. My space, my rules.
Outside, its free to be itself.
Inside my house, an unlawful intruder would find the same rules apply. Afterall, as they say, dead men tell no tales.
RJ
If (and only if) such a conclusion is actually reasonable. If, as in the scenario I described, he ignores everybody and heads for the television, it wouldn't be reasonable to conclude that anyone is facing such a threat of death or injury, nor sould I expect the law to protect one from the consequences of using lethal force to protect the Sony.
Ken
Well when he's laying there in the middle of the living room with two to the chest and one to the head, who's gonna say he was there for the x-box?
Bingo. Unless and until we are all walking around with giant cartoon thought bubbles over our heads (and don't think Mumbles isn't working on it), we'll NEVER know the true intent of someone who breaks into our homes. They may want to take your TV to sell on the black market for a few hits of crack; they may want to slaughter the entire family for sh!ts and giggles.
Anyone in my house that I did not invite is a target. Plain and simple.
Yes, the intruder died from lead poisoning...
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 57,033
- Likes
- 21,182
Scrivener, since we are having a civil discourse here, I have one nagging question about the part of your post I quoted above.
What prohibits the perp (if injured) or the perp's family (if perp is taking a dirt nap) from suing under the US Civil Rights Act in a home invasion case where homeowner dispatches the perp? Even if state law prohibits a civil lawsuit, what protects the homeowner from the infamous "you deprived him of his civil rights because you killed him" federal lawsuit?
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 57,033
- Likes
- 21,182
Scrivener,
Very interesting! So when we hear of someone accused of some sort of hate crime being accused of a civil rights violation, it's just media spin if the person isn't an agent of the state!
OK, thanks for clearing that up.
Very interesting! So when we hear of someone accused of some sort of hate crime being accused of a civil rights violation, it's just media spin if the person isn't an agent of the state!
OK, thanks for clearing that up.
![[popcorn]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/043.gif "Popcorn [popcorn]")
OK, thanks for lumping apples and pomegranates together.
"Hate crimes" have nothing to do with shooting an intruder in your home. The question was about the latter, which is where excessive force as a deprivation of civil rights was implied by your question.
Note also that hate crimes require protected classes, which home invaders are not; and that shooting is not considered a form of speech.
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
Click here, I googled it for you.
This is the latest growing trend across the country regarding firearms laws. I wonder if GOAL through the help ($) of the NRA will propose this in MA.
no retreat on the NRA site
Of course, you can get in trouble with intruders without a gun: Thief dies breaking into home; homeowner fined.
Then again, in Walpole, MA: Bullets scare off intruder. By the way, what ever became of this?
See also:
http://www.nraila.org/News/Archives/Releases.aspx
Don't forget local bylaws may also apply. See:
http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=2391
This is the latest growing trend across the country regarding firearms laws. I wonder if GOAL through the help ($) of the NRA will propose this in MA.
no retreat on the NRA site
Of course, you can get in trouble with intruders without a gun: Thief dies breaking into home; homeowner fined.
Then again, in Walpole, MA: Bullets scare off intruder. By the way, what ever became of this?
See also:
http://www.nraila.org/News/Archives/Releases.aspx
Don't forget local bylaws may also apply. See:
http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=2391
Last edited:
More like, if you're justified in drawing the gun, you'd better be ready
to use it, post haste. If the attacker ceases his actions at the same
moment you draw, it might not be wise to shoot him, but one should NEVER
draw a gun with the expectation that it's going to produce such
compliance without having to pull the trigger. Let's put it this way- if
you're actions are anything which would be seen as inconsistent with the
whole "imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm" spiel, then you're in
(more) trouble. Warning shots, brandishing (unless its unintentional as
above, eg, a guy that needed deadly force response, all of a sudden wises up
and chooses not to continue his agression), or threats, are all
huge no-nos in this state. If a firearm needs to come out, it must be
used in a concious and deliberate manner. Anything less than that opens
you to all kinds of extra problems. (the prosecutor could even try to
say that you escalated the confrontation by firing a warning shot, or
that if you fired a warning shot, then the target wasnt a REAL threat,
etc.).
In MA even a perfectly lawful self defense shooting generally puts the
defender in a "world of s*it" pretty fast. Knowing the judicial criteria
for lawful self defense up front though, is extremely helpful, and can reduce
the damage you end up taking in a huge way.
By far the most important things-
-Always be the one to call the police first, period, end.
-Call a (competent) lawyer immediately thereafter, especially one thats
versed in firearms and self defense law. Ones that at least defend
people who are in the "right" in using deadly force. Not all criminal
defense attorneys are created equal. A good warning sign to stay away
is if they use any other strategy aside from trying to say that you
acted in self defense. Anything outside of that kind of a response is
basically a road to hell, unless for some reason the self defense route
is completely blocked for some reason.
-Don't proffer any (detailed) information about the event that isnt germain to
the immediate police response, at least not until you get to talk to
counsel. Resist the urge to plead your case.... you'll have plenty of
time to do that later, after you've talked to your attorney about it...
-Forget about "property" it can be replaced. If a guy is in your front
yard trying to steal your car, resist the temptation to use a firearm to
intervene. That only leads to trouble in this state which would likely
cost you far more money than replacing the car would, unless its a car worth
well over 6 digits... but if you have that kind of coin, you can build a bunker
to encase the car.
-Mike
Chris
NES Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2005
- Messages
- 14,049
- Likes
- 9,616
So, are you saying that he if he pulls the gun he might as well use it? I imagine a LOT of baddies will "wise up" quick when they see that piece of metal come out. In other words, everybody is a tough guy until they get their bluff called. What is to stop them from filing suit against you now that you've called their bluff? Isn't this why this legislation is passing all around the country?
That doesn't always pan out so well either.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2006
- Messages
- 45
- Likes
- 1
Note also that hate crimes require protected classes, which home invaders are not; and that shooting is not considered a form of speech.
What if the home invader was black, and, it was determined through prior statement made on a forum such as this, that the shooter engaged in racial profiling to determine that the intruder was there to kill him and not simply take the shooter's stuff?
Just ask the CCW holder that got shot by the mall shooter
in WA. He tried to get the shooter to stand down by brandishing
his weapon and shouting commands at him.... all the shooter did was
drop him with his AK clone. Not smart. The guy lived but he paid a
hell of a price for not shooting first.
Mas Ayoob also wrote an article about a criminal who was not intimidated
by a defender brandishing a machinegun, and even firing few shot
burst at him. You know what the perp said? "F you and your automatic
rifle!" and then charged the guy, forcing the defender to pump a nice
several round burst into the perp.
I'm not saying every perp is going to be that recalcitrant, but it's a good
reality check.... I personally am -not- going to carry the mindset around
that compliance is in any way guaranteed- I'd rather keep the initiative if it's
at all possible. Ones individual response is going to depend greatly upon
what the factors are at hand. Armed vs unarmed attacker, demeanor,
etc. It's pretty safe to assume, however, that in the typical occupied
home invasion, that the BG is NOT there to try to make friends
with you. The BG has already resolved mentally that he doesnt care
that people are there. That level of sack shows that he's not really
concerned about that, either because hes armed, or he's already decided
hes going to "take care" of the occupants anyways..... this means that
he's inherently just that much more likely to hurt you or someone else
inside.
A civil suit is always better than death or injury. One can probably recover
from economic loss, on the other hand, it's pretty damn hard to come back from
the dead or recover from debilitating injury.
All the new legislation does is make less flaming hoops that people have
to jump through to defend themselves, and reduce some of the aftertastes
of a legal self defense case. This doesnt mean, by any stretch, that
such things will ever be a cake-walk though.
-Mike
IMO, it generally behooves you to be the first to report the
incident, because it generally makes you appear to be
the complaintant and not the offender. That call lays the
base for the legal dog and pony show that is ahead... and you
don't want to start that show having to go uphill.
There are no guarantees, but it certainly doesnt hurt
anything. It's a lot better than having the police show
up at your door later because the drunk that tried to break into
your house (that they didnt know about, because you never
reported it) made up a sob story to them about how he was walking
down the street and you pointed a gun at him while he was
walking home from some bar. The first person to whine is
generally given the benefit of the doubt.... so keep that in
mind.
There are very, very few situations where calling the police is NOT a good
idea.. I can think of a few offhand, and most of them are due to
bad locales, mostly in third world countries, where "guilty
until proven innocent" is the norm. In those places, "flight = guilt" as
a concept is the least of your problems.
-Mike
Let me get this straight: You seriously expect us to believe the attacker's race is more important than his present intent?
One must generally go to the DU site to find such strained attempts at resisting self-defense.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2006
- Messages
- 45
- Likes
- 1
Let me get this straight: You seriously expect us to believe the attacker's race is more important than his present intent?
One must generally go to the DU site to find such strained attempts at resisting self-defense.
Sorry for not being more clear. My post was an attempt at a, "tounge-in-cheek", politically correct explanation of how an intruder could be a member or a protected class.
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
