reply to post by butcherguy
We agree that one has the right to defend the home and the right to use deadly force in that defense.
We agree that one can expect to be shot and possible killed for breaking into a home, regardless of purpose.
I do not agree that the right to defend your castle is being challenged in the least.
I'm a super-advocate of home and self defense and the right to keep and bear arms and use them effectively. Just take a look at some of my writing
here on ATS if you don't believe me (any forum will do).
BUT there are CONSTRAINTS that must be observed:
. if one presents a clear threat like showing a weapon, taking an attack stance or moving in your direction -
. if one presents a verbally abusive tirade without making an assault or engaging in threatening behaviour -
better not shoot!
. if your assailant runs away when your weapon is displayed -
threat averted, don't shoot!
It is NOT legal to shoot someone that is in your yard in general - and definitely not from inside the house! We had a case a couple of years ago like
that where a homeowner shot two teens in his yard after dark through the window, yet couldn't articulate the perceived threat, he just didn't want
anybody in his yard.
My "estate" is gated, fenced, locked, posted NO TRESPASSING, has a sign depicting a revolver saying "Forget the Dog Beware of Owner", and then
there is the large pack of eight dogs.
You're dead meat if you come into my property BUT I'm still not legally empowered to shoot you out in the yard unless:
you don't leave when I tell you to OR
you're brandishing a weapon OR
you make an overt act to inflict physical bodily injury.
I also have the right to detain a still-breathing piece of dog food that doesn't want to leave when told to, so it's not going to always be
NECESSARY to shoot an intruder given MY circumstances - and what we are talking about here are very specific circumstances.
IF YOU ENTER SOMEONE'S HOUSE the rules change completely and SHOOT ON SIGHT/SHOOT TO KILL become the "orders of the day"...
- BUT -
it is STILL murder after shooting the home invader to change positions and get a better angle to finish you off "with a clean kill shot" as admitted
by the home owner to the police in this case.
If I have to use my weapon to subdue an immediate threat, it will be with lethal intent - once that threat is eliminated, I have no further
justification in continuing to use the weapon.
THE ISSUE regards the intentional and wanton murder of two defenceless individuals - both "victims/perps" were shot, downed, and of no possible
threat before they were killed - the home owner even changed guns to shoot the female when his first gun jammed.
THE PROBLEM IS the home owner admitted to murdering them intentionally after they had been disabled and downed - THAT is the problem here.