Costs of Protection
12-08-2007, 09:24 AM
#11
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,867
RE: Costs of Protection
hey whats money if your dead also i think if you were in the spot to defend yourself from a shooting if you went on TV and so on got it on the news you would properly get a phone call from the NRA wonting to donate one of there high price lawyers.
but the last thing i would think about is what will it cost me
but the last thing i would think about is what will it cost me
12-08-2007, 12:35 PM
#12
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 3,145
RE: Costs of Protection
Check your state laws on victim compensation. If you shoot a burglar, you are a victim, not the burglar. Some states will comp you for expenses like civil litigation resulting from being a crime victim. Even if you don't have that, a lawyer is only marginally more expensive than a mortician, and you get to sign the check!
12-08-2007, 12:49 PM
#13
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Texas - BUT NOW in Madison County, NY
Posts: 6,270
RE: Costs of Protection
"Don't go putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying that because of the costs don't arm/protect yourself. I'm just saying that no matter what side of the law you end up on you are going to pay through the nose."
This is wise counsel. But, actually, this depends to a great degree on the specific jurisdiction in which the event takes place. If your local judicial system is filled with milk-sop liberal judges and dominated by citizens of the same political bent who elect district attorneys of like mind, it is sure true enough!!
If, however, the local gentry are of the "castle" persuasion, who most likely would not vote to convict a person who has used reasonable force for what is a lawful act in that jurisdiction, local prosecutors are less likely to contemplate prosecuting that person. No DA wants to send a case to court that he knows is a loser beforehand!In this regard, it will be interesting to see what happens in the case of the shooter in Texas.
From what little I was able to gather about what happened (from the undoubtedly biased media!!) in that case, the reporterscertainly MADE IT SOUND like the "citizen" was the aggressor, and had made up his mind to KILL the two perps even before he made what seems a half-hearted attempt to apprehend them uninjured before opening fire! In addition, he personally does not appear to have been in much jeopardy himself before he went outside with his shotgun!
MOST jurisdictions will not countenance the use of deadly force to protect property, or to apprehend escaping felons if they are in fact fleeing the scene and not posing a threat while doing so. It used to be that way in Texas as well. Am I to understand that Texas has recently legalized the use of deadly force to protect property? How about to protect some other person's property?
This is wise counsel. But, actually, this depends to a great degree on the specific jurisdiction in which the event takes place. If your local judicial system is filled with milk-sop liberal judges and dominated by citizens of the same political bent who elect district attorneys of like mind, it is sure true enough!!
If, however, the local gentry are of the "castle" persuasion, who most likely would not vote to convict a person who has used reasonable force for what is a lawful act in that jurisdiction, local prosecutors are less likely to contemplate prosecuting that person. No DA wants to send a case to court that he knows is a loser beforehand!In this regard, it will be interesting to see what happens in the case of the shooter in Texas.
From what little I was able to gather about what happened (from the undoubtedly biased media!!) in that case, the reporterscertainly MADE IT SOUND like the "citizen" was the aggressor, and had made up his mind to KILL the two perps even before he made what seems a half-hearted attempt to apprehend them uninjured before opening fire! In addition, he personally does not appear to have been in much jeopardy himself before he went outside with his shotgun!
MOST jurisdictions will not countenance the use of deadly force to protect property, or to apprehend escaping felons if they are in fact fleeing the scene and not posing a threat while doing so. It used to be that way in Texas as well. Am I to understand that Texas has recently legalized the use of deadly force to protect property? How about to protect some other person's property?
12-08-2007, 02:05 PM
#14
Fork Horn
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 139
RE: Costs of Protection
ORIGINAL: NightFire
I have a friend in MI, came home after a graveyard shift, was hit in the head and left for dead. He woke up and heard his wife screaming, he took a knife from the kitchen and found the burgler holding a gun to his wife and raping her... He killed the rapist... He is serving a 25 year sentence for murder, his life was not directly threatened at the time and he stabbed the rapist in the back.
His wife left him after he was convicted.
WA has the most liberal self defense laws that I know of. I have heard OK is even more liberal, but have no personal experience with it.
I have a friend in MI, came home after a graveyard shift, was hit in the head and left for dead. He woke up and heard his wife screaming, he took a knife from the kitchen and found the burgler holding a gun to his wife and raping her... He killed the rapist... He is serving a 25 year sentence for murder, his life was not directly threatened at the time and he stabbed the rapist in the back.
His wife left him after he was convicted.
WA has the most liberal self defense laws that I know of. I have heard OK is even more liberal, but have no personal experience with it.
12-08-2007, 02:06 PM
#15
Typical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Waldorf Maryland USA
Posts: 668
RE: Costs of Protection
Come through the window, leave in a bag. I don't much concern myself with the consiquences of defending my family. If you break in my house your a threat, cause the two 100+ pound rots didn't dicourage you and would have to be dead. I love my Children more than freedom or money, so I would not gamble their health mental or physical hoping the persons breaking into my house or trying to carjack us won't hurt them.Men, Woman,Teenager an ethnic backgrounddoesn't matter, they will leave in a bag.
12-08-2007, 03:51 PM
#16
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location:
Posts: 199
RE: Costs of Protection
ORIGINAL: NightFire
I have a friend in MI, came home after a graveyard shift, was hit in the head and left for dead. He woke up and heard his wife screaming, he took a knife from the kitchen and found the burgler holding a gun to his wife and raping her... He killed the rapist... He is serving a 25 year sentence for murder, his life was not directly threatened at the time and he stabbed the rapist in the back.
His wife left him after he was convicted.
I have a friend in MI, came home after a graveyard shift, was hit in the head and left for dead. He woke up and heard his wife screaming, he took a knife from the kitchen and found the burgler holding a gun to his wife and raping her... He killed the rapist... He is serving a 25 year sentence for murder, his life was not directly threatened at the time and he stabbed the rapist in the back.
His wife left him after he was convicted.
12-08-2007, 06:20 PM
#18
Fork Horn
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 422
RE: Costs of Protection
ORIGINAL: eldeguello
"Don't go putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying that because of the costs don't arm/protect yourself. I'm just saying that no matter what side of the law you end up on you are going to pay through the nose."
This is wise counsel. But, actually, this depends to a great degree on the specific jurisdiction in which the event takes place. If your local judicial system is filled with milk-sop liberal judges and dominated by citizens of the same political bent who elect district attorneys of like mind, it is sure true enough!!
If, however, the local gentry are of the "castle" persuasion, who most likely would not vote to convict a person who has used reasonable force for what is a lawful act in that jurisdiction, local prosecutors are less likely to contemplate prosecuting that person. No DA wants to send a case to court that he knows is a loser beforehand!In this regard, it will be interesting to see what happens in the case of the shooter in Texas.
From what little I was able to gather about what happened (from the undoubtedly biased media!!) in that case, the reporterscertainly MADE IT SOUND like the "citizen" was the aggressor, and had made up his mind to KILL the two perps even before he made what seems a half-hearted attempt to apprehend them uninjured before opening fire! In addition, he personally does not appear to have been in much jeopardy himself before he went outside with his shotgun!
MOST jurisdictions will not countenance the use of deadly force to protect property, or to apprehend escaping felons if they are in fact fleeing the scene and not posing a threat while doing so. It used to be that way in Texas as well. Am I to understand that Texas has recently legalized the use of deadly force to protect property? How about to protect some other person's property?
"Don't go putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying that because of the costs don't arm/protect yourself. I'm just saying that no matter what side of the law you end up on you are going to pay through the nose."
This is wise counsel. But, actually, this depends to a great degree on the specific jurisdiction in which the event takes place. If your local judicial system is filled with milk-sop liberal judges and dominated by citizens of the same political bent who elect district attorneys of like mind, it is sure true enough!!
If, however, the local gentry are of the "castle" persuasion, who most likely would not vote to convict a person who has used reasonable force for what is a lawful act in that jurisdiction, local prosecutors are less likely to contemplate prosecuting that person. No DA wants to send a case to court that he knows is a loser beforehand!In this regard, it will be interesting to see what happens in the case of the shooter in Texas.
From what little I was able to gather about what happened (from the undoubtedly biased media!!) in that case, the reporterscertainly MADE IT SOUND like the "citizen" was the aggressor, and had made up his mind to KILL the two perps even before he made what seems a half-hearted attempt to apprehend them uninjured before opening fire! In addition, he personally does not appear to have been in much jeopardy himself before he went outside with his shotgun!
MOST jurisdictions will not countenance the use of deadly force to protect property, or to apprehend escaping felons if they are in fact fleeing the scene and not posing a threat while doing so. It used to be that way in Texas as well. Am I to understand that Texas has recently legalized the use of deadly force to protect property? How about to protect some other person's property?
I have been away from Texas for the past 3 years so that may have changed but about 35 years ago a friend of mine was involved in just such an instance and the property owner was absolved of all guilt. Believe it or not, he was rattling a guy's trash cans at night, the guy shot him (didn't kill him) and was cleared.
Another friend was shot (didn't kill him either) while cutting a corner, crossing a guys yard at 1am. He didn't know that the guy had recently been the victim of a burglary and thought the burglar had returned.
Texas historically has protected homeowners and their property.
12-08-2007, 10:14 PM
#19
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 3,145
RE: Costs of Protection
"Defense of property at night" is still alive and well in Texas. It may also apply to anyone you ask to watch your place for you, so it doesn't even have to be your property. Open carry has taken a beating there, but you can still get by with the "peaceable journey" exemption if you cross a county line.
