Yes. And when the guy turned and started drawing a gun, the homeowner was in fear of death or grave bodily injury.
-
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.
When you can shoot legally
- Thread starter JimConway
- Start date
Yes. And when the guy turned and started drawing a gun, the homeowner was in fear of death or grave bodily injury.
JimConway
Instructor
M1911
You missing something in the Scenario as posted"
"This situation happened in Las vegas. You are coming home from the range, armed and have just pulled into your driveway. As you get out of the car, you see 3 men carrying you best audio equipment and new HDTV to their car. You move behind your car, draw your gun and tell them to halt. Two of them drop the stolen goods and run. The third one turns toward you and begins to draw a gun. Can you legally shoot?"
The good guy had drawn his gun first and then told them to stop. Since he could not use deadly force to defend his property, he had no reason to draw and by drawing he gave up his status as the innocent. He was the one that escalated the situation and the BG was within his rights to respond
In Mass and in most other states, the criteria for drawing a gun is the same as the criteria for the use of deadly force. He had no reason to believe that there was any possibility of serious body damage or possible death.
You missing something in the Scenario as posted"
"This situation happened in Las vegas. You are coming home from the range, armed and have just pulled into your driveway. As you get out of the car, you see 3 men carrying you best audio equipment and new HDTV to their car. You move behind your car, draw your gun and tell them to halt. Two of them drop the stolen goods and run. The third one turns toward you and begins to draw a gun. Can you legally shoot?"
The good guy had drawn his gun first and then told them to stop. Since he could not use deadly force to defend his property, he had no reason to draw and by drawing he gave up his status as the innocent. He was the one that escalated the situation and the BG was within his rights to respond
In Mass and in most other states, the criteria for drawing a gun is the same as the criteria for the use of deadly force. He had no reason to believe that there was any possibility of serious body damage or possible death.
Jim:
Yup, you're right, I missed that, and I agree that you are correct. If he had simply issued a verbal command without drawing the gun, then they would have been the aggressor.
Yup, you're right, I missed that, and I agree that you are correct. If he had simply issued a verbal command without drawing the gun, then they would have been the aggressor.
You see just how complicated it can get? (Remember, in the real world you've got less time to make your decision than it took you to read that question.) The reason I posed the question was because Jim has also managed to slip up. While the home owner was not justified in drawing his gun initially, neither was the burglar within his rights to respond with deadly force. All he had to do to avoid the use of lethal force against himself was to comply with the commands of the home owner. Even if the burglar were to panic and believe that the homeowner was going to shoot him regardless of his actions, such a conclusion wouldn't be reasonable and thus not a basis for the legal use of lethal force in defense. IOW, both the home owner and the burglar were unjustified here.
Ken
JimConway
Instructor
I do not sure how the attorneys would view the question of rape as grave bodily harm.
Since rape is associated with control and often results in physical and mental harm, my feeling are that it would be a justification for the use of deadly force
Since rape is associated with control and often results in physical and mental harm, my feeling are that it would be a justification for the use of deadly force
Law varies from state to state, but in general it appears to me that deadly force is justified in response to rape.
Ayoob addressed this when I took LFI-1. It was his belief that rape is danger of death or grave bodily injury. After all, rape is usually done under threat of violence -- submit or else -- and the "else" is death or grave bodily injury. So it isn't just the injury (physical and psychological) from the rape that needs to be considered, but also the threat (implicit or explicit) that goes along with rape.
http://www.recguns.com/Sources/IID1.html
http://www.corneredcat.com/Legal/rape.aspx
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=108610
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html
IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and YMMV.
MaverickNH
NES Member
I think to ANY case where one or more cops have fired one to dozens of rounds at what turned out to be an unarmed person. Don't they always indicate that the person appeared to be reaching for what appeared to be a gun? They don't even have to work hard to get that story straight among themseleves - I'm sure a rookie learns it's an automatic default if a gun isn't found.
What can you learn from the observation that, in most cases, the cops get off the hook?
Robbers in the UK have learned they can ply their trade with impunity as the government will prosecute a homeowner who uses a weapon of any kind to defend themseleves during a home invasion.
Let's not willingly model ourselves in their image by training ourselves to get shot, stabbed and beat to avoid legal backwash. It might be worth re-reading A Nation of Cowards http://rkba.org/comment/cowards.html
What can you learn from the observation that, in most cases, the cops get off the hook?
Robbers in the UK have learned they can ply their trade with impunity as the government will prosecute a homeowner who uses a weapon of any kind to defend themseleves during a home invasion.
Let's not willingly model ourselves in their image by training ourselves to get shot, stabbed and beat to avoid legal backwash. It might be worth re-reading A Nation of Cowards http://rkba.org/comment/cowards.html
I would articulate this thusly:
I was returning home when I observed unknown several individuals exiting my home in an obviously furtive manner and carrying much of my property, which indicated that they were there for hostile purposes. I was unsure if my family was home and what had happened during the apparent robbery. I also have several firearms, so it was possible they had armed themselves with them during their thefts if they hadn't brought weapons to the robbery, which is common. Presented with the possibility of facing an armed group who had just robbed my home and had possibly harmed my family and feeling my life was justifiably in danger due to the likelihood of the presence of weapons and the definite position of being outnumbered and therefore in danger from a group who would be likely to use force in their attempt to escape, I drew my firearm to protect myself and established a defensive position in order to minimize any potential attacks.
Upon reaching the position, suspect one, later identified as John Doe, reached into his waistband and drew a small black handgun......
Any defense attorney worth anything will get you off if it even goes past the grand jury, which I would doubt.
You draw the gun to PROTECT yourself, not to defend your property. You would need to protect yourself due to 1) being outnumbered, 2) the possibility of your family being home and maybe harmed, 3) you have weapons in your home they may have stolen, 4) there's a strong possibility they brought weapons with them, etc.
Works nicely for an officer, but probably not as well for the average citizen. All he had to do to protect himself was to withdraw and call 911. That option isn't open to the police.
Ken
Ken
pdm
NES Member
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Pring-Wilson case have the standard by which one can defend oneself while out in public? MA's castle doctrine only applies within the dwelling, as I understand it.
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
JimConway
Instructor
I am not sure how or if Pring - Wilson ties into this area.
You have to have a reasonable belief that you life is in immediate jeopardy or that you are about to suffer grievious bodily harm.. The BG must have the means, the intent and the opportunity to make this happen. You have the obligation to get away, if you can safely. Getting away (running if possible) makes good sense no matter whether the state's law requires it or not
You have to have a reasonable belief that you life is in immediate jeopardy or that you are about to suffer grievious bodily harm.. The BG must have the means, the intent and the opportunity to make this happen. You have the obligation to get away, if you can safely. Getting away (running if possible) makes good sense no matter whether the state's law requires it or not
Not if it meant 1) putting themselves in danger (your incredibly vulnerable when you get into your car, not the least of which occurs when the interior light backlights you so nicely) and 2) you have possible injured, etc. family members inside. You don't have to leave them to potentially die.
That's how I'd look at it if I rolled up on the scene. Of course, most of what you write down as a cop is what people say, which is why people should have their motivations and reasons fixed in their head before they speak to the cops.
