Home invasion ends badly for badguy - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: Home invasion ends badly for badguy

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Drakes Creek, AR
    Posts
    371
    isnt the hospital "suppose" to report a possible gunshot wound?
    DrLewall
    "Doc"
    Drakes Creeks, AR
    www.kiltsrock.com
    "A gun unloaded and cocked aint good for nuttin!"--Rooster Cogburn

  2.   
  3. #12
    couldn't she have gotten in trouble for assault? they didn't seem to threaten her life, just wanted money. I was told if they just want your property you can't shoot them. I don't believe a court would see getting punched in the face as life threatening. I'm new to this fear of serious bodily injury or death justifies shooting thing.

    ok.I just found an article about the castle doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-y...nd-your-ground .it also staes that if you believe the intruder will commit a felony while burglarising your home you can shoot him. isn't the act of burglary a felony in itself?
    Last edited by crazycathed; 12-15-2008 at 05:06 PM.

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,675
    Quote Originally Posted by boyzoi View Post
    I wonder what caliber she used....not big enough Id say
    It probably wasn't so much the caliber choice as it was the BG being hyped up on drugs. Either that, or she used FMJs instead of HPs.
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    3,098

    Exclamation This is Florida!

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycathed View Post
    couldn't she have gotten in trouble for assault? they didn't seem to threaten her life, just wanted money. I was told if they just want your property you can't shoot them. I don't believe a court would see getting punched in the face as life threatening. I'm new to this fear of serious bodily injury or death justifies shooting thing.

    ok.I just found an article about the castle doctrine Castle Doctrine in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .it also staes that if you believe the intruder will commit a felony while burglarising your home you can shoot him. isn't the act of burglary a felony in itself?
    Who assaulted whom?

    In Florida you have the legal right to drop a badguy like a rabid dog in defense of life and property. You only have to be able to prove a valid threat. Once the threat is validated by the police in the police report, you are even protected to some extent from wrongful injury/wrongful death lawsuits brought by the badguy's turd bag family and associates. (Kind of a thanks for playing better luck next time clause for the criminals who truly deserve to dealt with sharply.)

    They broke into her home (Felony B&E)
    They assaulted her with their fists (Felony Assault and battery in the first degree with intent to harm or maim)
    They demanded money (Felony robbery)

    She fought back and she is still alive! Legally she could have shot and killed both attackers and walked scot free.
    She has my respect for stopping when they fled. I hope the guy gets caught and sent up the river. I bet he will think twice after getting gut shot by a ticked off female.
    FESTUS
    IN OMNIA PARATUS

  6. #15
    from what I understand reading the legal document they don't have to be in your house and you can shoot them.prowling around your house is enough cause. in ohio "residence" also extends to your car and the cars of immediate family members.
    Last edited by crazycathed; 12-15-2008 at 08:43 PM.

  7. #16
    FYI. Here is a copy of the Texas Castle Doctrine


    SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:

    (4) “Habitation” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

    (5) “Vehicle” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

    SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:

    (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

    (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

    (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

    (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

    (C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

    (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

    (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

    (e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

    (f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

    SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:

    Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

    (1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

    (2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and

    [(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

    (A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

    (B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

    (b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

    (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

    (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

    (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

    (C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

    (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

    (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].

    (c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

    (d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

    SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

    Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].

    SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.

    (b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

    SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.


    Notice the followig.

    (e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

    It does not have to be your home but anywhere you have the right to be
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  8. #17
    gpbarth Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by festus View Post
    Who assaulted whom?

    In Florida you have the legal right to drop a badguy like a rabid dog in defense of life and property. You only have to be able to prove a valid threat. Once the threat is validated by the police in the police report, you are even protected to some extent from wrongful injury/wrongful death lawsuits brought by the badguy's turd bag family and associates. (Kind of a thanks for playing better luck next time clause for the criminals who truly deserve to dealt with sharply.)

    They broke into her home (Felony B&E)
    They assaulted her with their fists (Felony Assault and battery in the first degree with intent to harm or maim)
    They demanded money (Felony robbery)

    She fought back and she is still alive! Legally she could have shot and killed both attackers and walked scot free.
    She has my respect for stopping when they fled. I hope the guy gets caught and sent up the river. I bet he will think twice after getting gut shot by a ticked off female.

    And in Florida, the law now states that you do not have to retreat, even in a public venue (the "castle doctrine" is now moot). So if you are assaulted on a public sidewalk, you can still drop the BG instead of running. Of course, you have to have reason to believe that you are in danger of physical injury or death (or the felony robbery offense). Just try not to shoot anyone in the back, or you may have some 'splainin' to do.

  9. #18
    well at least one was shot.. he deserved it. too bad he is still out and about and probably will strike again.
    You can have my freedom as soon as I'm done with it!!!

  10. Or not enough well placed shots. Calliber means **** when two or three are placed right. Gut wounds are very survivable.

  11. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    St. Petersburg, Florida
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by boyzoi View Post
    I wonder what caliber she used....not big enough Id say
    It worked, didn't it? I would imagine if he kept coming at her she would have kept firing. Instead he stopped and left.

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