Intruder - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30

Thread: Intruder

  1. I believe I have a much better understanding now...thanks, again, bofh.

  2.   
  3. I live in TN & we have the same Castle Doctrine law & Stand Your Ground (Duty To Retreat). What this last part means is, you are not required to run, retreat, skeedaddle, leave, etc. but it DOESN'T mean you can't. If the bad guy is running away, go the opposite way & protect yourself & your family by a little discretion. If he's stupid enough to view that as cowardice & comes back, plant one or two or three in him, as that would indicate bad intent. Running away...not so much...& that's when you have the slippery slope if you plug him in the back.

  4. #13
    A person running away is no longer a threat.
    “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
    But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” ― Steven Weinberg

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,819
    Quote Originally Posted by Poppy55 View Post
    I live in TN & we have the same Castle Doctrine law & Stand Your Ground (Duty To Retreat). What this last part means is, you are not required to run, retreat, skeedaddle, leave, etc. but it DOESN'T mean you can't. If the bad guy is running away, go the opposite way & protect yourself & your family by a little discretion. If he's stupid enough to view that as cowardice & comes back, plant one or two or three in him, as that would indicate bad intent. Running away...not so much...& that's when you have the slippery slope if you plug him in the back.
    There are slippery-slope arguments, and then there are incompletely-considered arguments. I believe yours is the latter. There are several instances that I can think of just off the top of my head where the simple act of running (or even casually walking) away from me in my own home or on my own property should not be taken as indicative of the threat no longer existing, and probably just as many that I'm not thinking of off the top of my head. An obvious instance would be if the bad guy was armed and shooting as he ran away. You can bet that if I've established good cover and can get a shot or three off without exposing myself, I'm returning fire even if it might hit him in the back. You can also bet that if I couldn't get any shots off and he runs outside, I'm not locking myself and wife in some room where I can't see where he's going or if he's simply regrouping and planning another, better-thought-out assault.

    While inside the house, the bad guy might be running for cover himself, where he plans to continue the gunfight that he started when he brazenly invaded an occupied dwelling, burglarized and/or attempted to rob from and/or vandalize my property to begin with. If he makes it outside, he may well be running for his vehicle where he's got more and/or bigger, better weapons with which to finish what he started. Blinding one's self to what someone who has already proven his brazenness by his occupied home invasion seems rather bad planning to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by XD40scinNC View Post
    A person running away is no longer a threat.
    That is not always the case, either tactically or legally-speaking. As bofh very articulately said more than once, the facts of a shooting incident drive the conclusion of it being a justified use of force or not. There are no pat answers, only hypotheticals that one can think of before deeming it necessary to shoot, and literally infinite numbers of hypotheticals that one cannot think of before it happens. Pat answers are for those who either have not acquired good defensive weapons training, or didn't pay attention in class and during the range drills if they have acquired some.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  6. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post


    That is not always the case, either tactically or legally-speaking.
    There are no absolutes, but 99%+ of the time a person running away is no longer a threat.
    “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
    But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” ― Steven Weinberg

  7. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,819
    Quote Originally Posted by XD40scinNC View Post
    There are no absolutes, but 99%+ of the time a person running away is no longer a threat.
    And whose backside did you pull that statistic out of, your own or the Mommies'?
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  8. #17
    Then prove me wrong, it works much better than your silly little insults to prove your point.
    “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
    But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” ― Steven Weinberg

  9. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,819
    Quote Originally Posted by XD40scinNC View Post
    Then prove me wrong, it works much better than your silly little insults to prove your point.
    It's your made-up stat. Why would I do anything to research something you made up, whether it turned out to be right or wrong?

    And you criticizing insulting banter? Wow. Are you playing pot or kettle today?
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  10. #19
    The phrase "running away" means they are leaving the situation.
    They are no longer a threat.

    The phrase "running away while shooting at you" means they are a threat. Shoot back.
    So does "running away from you, but toward the shotgun leaning in the corner", or "running away from you, but toward your wife with a knife in his hand".
    Shoot 'em.

    If someone is truly "running away", then they are no longer a threat 100% of the time.
    It's not a stat I pulled out of my colon, it's a fact supported by the wording of the phrase.
    Just as it's a fact that a woman can't be "sort of" pregnant; either she IS or she ISN'T.

  11. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,819
    Quote Originally Posted by Robgmn View Post
    The phrase "running away" means they are leaving the situation.
    They are no longer a threat.

    The phrase "running away while shooting at you" means they are a threat. Shoot back.
    So does "running away from you, but toward the shotgun leaning in the corner", or "running away from you, but toward your wife with a knife in his hand".
    Shoot 'em.

    If someone is truly "running away", then they are no longer a threat 100% of the time.
    It's not a stat I pulled out of my colon, it's a fact supported by the wording of the phrase.
    Just as it's a fact that a woman can't be "sort of" pregnant; either she IS or she ISN'T.
    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:

    ALA CODE § 13A-3-23 : Alabama Code - Section 13A-3-23: USE OF FORCE IN DEFENSE OF A PERSON

    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.

    That's what you call a fact, Jack.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast