It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle.
While such tragedies are terrible to think of and ultimately a problem is growing in this country, it is going to only get worse and worse as more and more come out, where it is a case of an adult shooting and potentially killing a child
Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by NavyDoc
I disagree with the concept that you must draw only when it is time to shoot. That is not in any of the CCW laws.
That incorrect, friend, and it flies in the face of everything taught. Sorry for the long quote but its all relevant:
A few weeks ago I got a frantic email from a fellow who wanted me to be an expert witness in a gun related case. He included his lawyer’s phone number, so I gave the lawyer a call to see what happened.
Here’s what he told me: His client lives in an apartment building with underground parking and assigned spaces. For one reason or another, his client decided to park in another person’s spot (We’ll call him Mr. T.). Well, Mr. T. was not a happy camper about this, so he left a nasty note on the client’s windshield along the lines of “never park in my spot again or bad things will happen.”
The client did not appreciate the note so he wrote an even “friendlier” note and taped it to the wall on Mr. T’s spot. To make a long story short, these two very mature adults went back and forth trading nasty notes with each other… until one day, the client caught Mr. T. in the parking garage writing one of these notes.
A verbal argument ensued…
And the client said he turned his back to Mr. T. to read a note which had been taped on the parking garage wall. And that as he was reading the note, he thought he saw Mr. T. raise his hand over his head as if he was going to hit the client in the back of the head. At that moment, the client drew his firearm as he turned around and told Mr. T. to back off. (Mr. T. then called the police and the client was charged with brandishing.)
After this long story, the lawyer asked me if I would be an expert witness and I said “sure I’ll do it, but you’re not going to like what I have to say”. The reason being, the client should not have drawn his gun, because this was not a deadly force situation.
You see, even though I’m not a lawyer myself (thank goodness) you have to remember that in order to draw your gun you must be in immediate fear for your life. You don’t draw your gun to scare someone off, you don’t draw the gun and shoot to “wound” someone either. If you’re taking out your gun it’s because you need to use it that instant because if you don’t you might end up a dead man.
What you need to do is to be able to articulate reasonable concern of immediate harm. Whereas you must be prepared to shoot, you don't have to shoot. Someone says they are going to kill you and pulls out a knife but is still across a busy highway, you can still articulate reason to pull your weapon without him having to be within knifing range.
I never said you HAVE to shoot once it’s out. Obviously if you pull it out to shoot and the person instantly runs away before you pull the trigger then you would not shoot. I’m just saying that you should NEVER pull it out unless you’re going to use it immediately and you should NEVER flash it as a deterrent. That would be irresponsible.
How is someone just being on your property at any time deemed an imminent threat to the lives of the homeowners? Yes, it looks mighty suspicious if it's 2am and they've climbed over an 8ft fence, but that in itself doesn't make them a violent threat? How would you feel if it had been your neighbour's teenage son fooling around with his pals and who had climbed over to retrieve something, that you shot without giving any kind of warning?
So, you don't actually have to behave violently in those places, you just have to be dumb enough to be caught on someone's property when you weren't invited and it's the death penalty?
1868 Cattle Ranchers Law in Texas which still is in effect to date states you can shoot anyone that trespasses onto your property can be shot because they deem harm to you and your livelihood.
This law has been challenged for over 100 years, but Texas makes the defense that a person who trespasses onto your property likely does not have a legal right to be there and also does not intend not to harm you or deprive you of your property and or life.
Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by roadgravel
Florida law is pretty similar in this regard (and for the same reason). It is mostly to discourage cattle rustling and horse stealing. And yes, I have horses, and yes, this (horse theft) still goes on. In addition, it's a business, we board horses, and I have a responsibility to protect our borders' pets.edit on 31-7-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)
will bring you much more trouble and complications than you seem to think.
To be honest though, I will fire a warning shot first...and if they run, I won't fire after them (unless they pause). I simply wouldn't want the kind of complication this guy is dealing with.
in FL, that's 20yrs, almost automatically.
Except as provided in subsection (2) or subsection (3), any person who knowingly discharges a firearm in any public place or on the right-of-way of any paved public road, highway, or street, who knowingly discharges any firearm over the right-of-way of any paved public road, highway, or street or over any occupied premises, or who recklessly or negligently discharges a firearm outdoors on any property used primarily as the site of a dwelling as defined in s. 776.013 or zoned exclusively for residential use commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. This section does not apply to a person lawfully defending life or property or performing official duties requiring the discharge of a firearm or to a person discharging a firearm on public roads or properties expressly approved for hunting by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission or Florida Forest Service.
not sure i understand why her case wasn't reduced to a misdemeanor or accepted as SYG given the 'protection order' in effect but it is what it is.
Under Florida's mandatory minimum sentencing requirements Alexander couldn't receive a lesser sentence, even though she has never been in trouble with the law before. Judge Daniel said the law did not allow for extenuating or mitigating circumstances to reduce the sentence below the 20-year minimum.
Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by macman
Dont want to face intense questioning and a possible murder trial, don't shoot teenagers or anybody else in the head, just because they are on your property. Well, not unless you have full cctv coverage that backs up everything you claim as justification, that is.
Alexander was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and because she discharged a firearm during the incident, the case fell under Florida's "10-20-life" law, enacted in 1999, which mandates a 20-year sentence for use of a gun during the commission of certain crimes.