Homeowner charged with attempted murder. - Blogs - USA Carry - Concealed Carry Forum
View RSS Feed

Obwana1

Homeowner charged with attempted murder.

Rate this Entry
Quote Originally Posted by whodat2710 View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Obwana1 View Post
I think this kid is a problem and you never know what his true intentions were - most likely no good. However, here is the 'real' legal aspect of this. In order to shoot to kill, the shooter may only use deadly force if he "reasonably" believes he is in danger and will suffer "severe" bodily injury or life threatening injury. Or you can use deadly force in the instances of rape, arson, or robbery. Protection of an inanimate object does not afford the shooter any protection under 'self defense' or 'make my day' laws. Now, everyone has their own personal belief of what is reasonable, but it comes down to what is reasonable to the "normal" majority of the population. Since this kid was outside the house and unarmed (irrelevant here), I'm guessing this guy will not get away with a self defense plea because he had the option of returning to his home and locking his door. If this kid broke into through the locked door, then this story would be different. Hey, I'm all for self defense, but just because you own a gun, doesn't give you the right to shoot to kill. Sorry but any idiot can own a gun, but gun ownership comes with a lot of responsibility and you must always be able to think clearly and act justifiably.
I do agree with your last sentence. As such it is your responsibility to be familiar with the laws in your state, as they are very different. For you to make a blanket statement that "that's illegal" or "you can't do that" is also irresponsible. For example, here is the SC law:
PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY ACT

The stated intent of the legislation is to codify the common law castle doctrine, which recognizes that a personís home is his castle, and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the personís place of business. This bill authorizes the lawful use of deadly force under certain circumstances against an intruder or attacker in a personís dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. The bill provides that there is no duty to retreat if (1) the person is in a place where he has a right to be, including the personís place of business, (2) the person is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and (3) the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily injury, or the commission of a violent crime. A person who lawfully uses deadly force is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his official duties and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using deadly force knows or reasonably should have known the person is a law enforcement officer.

H.4301 (R412) was signed by the Governor on June 9, 2006.
When the kid reached for something in his pants, game over. You don't have to wait until he shoots at you. Good form would be to issue a verbal command such as "show me your hands" or something just so you can more easily articulate why you were forced to shoot. The phrase in this law "to prevent...a violent crime" could be simple battery. The fact that he was on the guys property inside a fence changes the whole ball game.

You are correct about "blanket statements", however I never said "that's illegal" or "you can't do that". What I did include is Colorado law regarding deadly force. All states have different views on deadly force, that is for sure. I do question why the home owner would go outside at 2 in the morning with a gun when there may have been alternative actions, such as call the police to report a trespasser in a private, fenced yard. For me personally, I am not 100% sure that I would go outside if I saw someone in my yard, but you just never know until the situation approaches. I think there is never a "right" answer to situations such as this because we all react differently in any situation. But you are right, also, in that when the kid reached for something in his pants the danger level rose thus placing the home owner in a 'protect' mode. Yes, we don't know if any verbal commands were issued as that would change the situation too. This will be interesting to see if the homeowner will be found guilty or acquitted (as in the Zimmerman case).
Tags: None Add / Edit Tags
Categories
Uncategorized

Comments

Quantcast