ORIGINAL: NJ_Bowhntr
What do you think is irresponsible, the statement, or the course of action (shooting an intruder)?
There is nothing irresponsible about the statement. The statement was made to illustrate the difference between having someone on your property, vs in your house. The phrase "you can kill him because he is there" means...since he is in your house (THERE), you can shoot, if he were outside (not THERE), you can't shoot...therefore, there is a big difference between someone coming onto your property, and someone, anyone, coming into your house. You implied there isn't any difference between someone walking on your property, and someone coming in your house. My response wasposted to show you just how differently those two actions are viewed by the Law.
As for the course of action...I believe self defense is, in it's most basic form, taking responsiblility for oneself and not hoping someone else will save you. That is not for everyone, but it is also not irresponsible either.
Have a happy new year.
Don't mean to take it off course, but I can't just sit back and listen on this one...although I know I should.
Unless you live in a state such as FL which just signed the "Castle Doctrine" earlier this year you'd better have a lot of money in the bank and a team of top notch defense attorneys before you choose to use lethal force against someone just because they are in your house. Just being in your house does not automatically imply danger to life or limb.
That defense team is going to have to work awfully hardto prove to the jury that.....
1. The perp was there toinflict bodilyharm. Most states do not allow the use of lethal force to protect property. (i.e. your house or anything in it)
2. You had absolutely no way to escape the perp's advances. Those three dirty little words..."duty to retreat."
3. It was 100% necessary to use lethal force. Why didn't you just grab a baseball bat?
4. The perp was armed. You better be darn sure that was a gun or knife in his hand and not a non-lethal tool he just used to break into your house.
5. The perp was not attempting to retreat when you fired.A body 2 stepsfrom the door or a hole in the back brings up a whole new set of circumstances.
6. Your mind/judgment was not altered in any way at the time of the shooting. If youwere drinking that night and still had booze in your system when the shooting occurred you better hope for a miracle.
7. There were no other extenuating circumstances that the state and civil lawyers will spend day and night trying to dig up to color you as a murderer.
8. There was a reason for you to have a gun in the house in the first place. Although your license gives you theprivilege to own a gun you'll have to prove to a jury that you needed to.
9.That your door was locked. Otherwise the victim just may very well have been a transient of some sort looking for shelter from the cold. Remember, this is an anti-gun prosecutor we're dealing with here.
And they'll have to defend you againsta slew of other things anti-gun prosecutors have brought up in the 100 or so other cases involving guns before getting to yours.
Beyond this you'll have to explain why you needed to use an "Automatic Weapon...Objection your honor...Sorry your honor, Semi-Automatic Weapon with 10+1 rounds instead of a simple revolver with 5 or 6." After all, we know only drug dealers and thugs carry big guns like that.
And "What was the name of those bullets you used? Extreme Shock Tactical Defense Rounds? That's apretty scary sounding bullet. Was that the only kind of bullet that fit in your gun? No? What purpose did that type of bullet serve?" Again, we all know only drug dealers and thugs use ammunition with scary sounding names like Cop Killers.
Now that we've established that you have a big drug dealer style gun and ammunitionin which the name alone scares some jurors "Were youplanning on murdering...Objection your honor...Sorry your honor,ending the life ofanyone who entered your home? I mean, what other reason is there for such a deadly combination?" Can you say establishing a Rambo Syndromefor the jury?
And you better hope you don't have mace or pepper spray in the house. Even if it's in the back of some cupboard or your wife's purse downstairs because the fact that you made a conscious decision to use your gun instead of the mace or pepper spray will really paint you as a murderer. After all, you kept the gun by your bed not the mace or pepper spray. That means you intended to kill any intruders from the start.
And lastly, you better make darn sure you remember exactly what you said and exactly what the perp said because otherwise your testimony starts and ends with you pulling the trigger on another human being.
These prosecutors do this for a living. You'll see the inside of the courtroom once while they've seen it many, many times and have dealt with many, many cases involving this same exact thing. "I was defending myself and/or my family from someone who entered my home."
[/align][/align]