Armed invader killed with his own weapon...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

OK-- so suppose (ignoring castle laws for the moment) the attacker arrived unarmed. Suppose too that the
defender has some skills and there is no disparity of force. Does that allow the defender to grab a knife off a shelf
and use it? A gun? Shoot an unarmed attacker v maybe lead them out the door with a "come along?"

If in this case the attacker was a perfect stranger to both, and entered using force (TX statue) then I think the stabbing
is fully justifiable. If it turns out this was a love triangle as someone suggested, if the attacker did not enter
using force and the fight started after he was admitted, it starts to get a tad murky.

---

There's no hard and fast line to be drawn for 'fearing for your life' so yeah, an unarmed attacker could still cause you to fear for your life and allow for use of a deadly weapon. Put it this way, I'm absolutely not going to get into a fistfight with someone who has entered into my property illegally simply because they don't appear to be armed. Now I'm not saying I'll just whip out a pistol and start shooting but that all depends on what that person is doing, and more importantly does, when my firearm is produced. If they comply and go prone or turn and haul maggie out the way they came, then I'm not going to finish depressing the trigger. If then don't stop being a threat real, real fast, then it's going to get bad for them. It's not really my problem. I didn't tell them to break in.

On your second point, I'm not actually sure how much that matters. Once they dead guy produced a deadly weapon, all bets are off. Invited. Uninvited. Whatever. Assuming the story is true and he comes in and initiates an attack with a deadly weapon, he's opened the 'kill or be killed' mentality. The fact that he lost is, once again, too bad. Even if you are an invited guest on someone else's property, instigating a deadly conflict still provides a justifiable defense.

Now all that said, if that's not how it went down, then all bets are off. If we find out the guy that lived actually started the fight, or something, then it'll get complicated for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

OK-- so suppose (ignoring castle laws for the moment) the attacker arrived unarmed. Suppose too that the
defender has some skills and there is no disparity of force. Does that allow the defender to grab a knife off a shelf
and use it? A gun? Shoot an unarmed attacker v maybe lead them out the door with a "come along?"

If in this case the attacker was a perfect stranger to both, and entered using force (TX statue) then I think the stabbing
is fully justifiable. If it turns out this was a love triangle as someone suggested, if the attacker did not enter
using force and the fight started after he was admitted, it starts to get a tad murky.

---

^^^^^^^^Too many would'a Could'a should'as^^^^^^^^^^

The home invader was just that, a home invader, and if a someone is going to grapple with the $64,000 question of should the homeowner have stopped after 3,4,5,6,7 stabs, is a question that needs not be asked, as long as it can not be proven that he stabbed him while the perp was actually fleeing, or sprawled out prone.

The fool was somewhere he never should have been, with evil intent, and that is all that matters.
If he was still standing and struggling with the homeowner, he was still posing a threat, therefore he needed more stabbing.......

IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldVet

That's called "The New York Defence" in some legal circles. Having to rely on criminals' illegal weapons to defend yourself.

---

So if the homeowner grabs the invader's gun, and shoots them with it, will he be charged with violation of NY code, for "possessing" an unregistered gun? Maybe even one with "scary military features"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oneshot

^^^^^^^^Too many would'a Could'a should'as^^^^^^^^^^

The home invader was just that, a home invader, and if a someone is going to grapple with the $64,000 question of should the homeowner have stopped after 3,4,5,6,7 stabs, is a question that needs not be asked, as long as it can not be proven that he stabbed him while the perp was actually fleeing, or sprawled out prone.

The fool was somewhere he never should have been, with evil intent, and that is all that matters.
If he was still standing and struggling with the homeowner, he was still posing a threat, therefore he needed more stabbing.......

IMHO.

---

Well, that's the question, isn't it? We truly don't know if he was still fighting or not.

(Just as an aside, I think if you do it right the first time there is no need to stab more than once.)

If an unarmed home invader continues to advance on you while you are armed with a knife or gun, you can assume one thing... The unarmed invader believes he is confident enough that he can disarm you and use it against you.

It has been successfully defended in court on several occasions according to Ayoob.

Under the reasonable man standard, no reasonable man who is unarmed, would continue to advance on a person who is clearly armed, unless they do believe they could disarm said individual. Coupled with an illegal entry into a residence, the armed homeowner has no choice but to defend themself.

Missouri does observe a Castle Law Doctrine. I don't get why there is so much concerned over the rights of the criminal. He was being a bad guy and died for the devotion to his trade. I've seen some of the comments here and don't agree that you must be absolutely convinced your life's in danger before you can use deadly force. Are you going to wait until your half choked out before you act. Might be too late by that time. If you in my house and you continue to advance on my position after being told to halt you get what you deserve. Hazard of the trade. You can't take the Castle Law out of the equation as its the hinge pin of legal vs illegal. Why is the morality of the taking of a life always on the shoulders of the good guy while the criminal gets a pass. Obviously there are some law makers left with some common sense. Thank you Castle Law Doctrine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoganbeg

Well, that's the question, isn't it? We truly don't know if he was still fighting or not.

(Just as an aside, I think if you do it right the first time there is no need to stab more than once.)

---

^^^^^^Your post is so full of bravado it reeks.^^^^^^^^^^^

First off, the question shouldn't need asking in the first place.

Second, let me know when someone breaks into your house , who's just as bad-ass as you, you are able to wrestle the knife away, any he, for some strange reason wants it back, and begins a struggle for your life.
Then YOU stab him once, go pour yourself a cocktail, light a cigar/cigarette and have a seat and then call 911.
Let me know how that works for you.

Gimmie a break.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oneshot

^^^^^^Your post is so full of bravado it reeks.^^^^^^^^^^^

First off, the question shouldn't need asking in the first place.

Second, let me know when someone breaks into your house , who's just as bad-ass as you, you are able to wrestle the knife away, any he, for some strange reason wants it back, and begins a struggle for your life.
Then YOU stab him once, go pour yourself a cocktail, light a cigar/cigarette and have a seat and then call 911.
Let me know how that works for you.

Gimmie a break.

---

Heh. It's funny that you saw it that way because when I read his post the first thing I thought of was "No, if you've "done it right" it's because you brought a gun to the bad guy's knife fight"!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TX expat

Heh. It's funny that you saw it that way because when I read his post the first thing I thought of was "No, if you've "done it right" it's because you brought a gun to the bad guy's knife fight"!

---

^^^^^^^^^^I may concede, based on you're analogy^^^^^^^

We'll wait for Hoganbeg to clairify.

Looking at it, it sure is one of those, could be either or.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TX expat

When the aggressor ceases to be a threat. Simply because he was disarmed does not remove, or even reduce, his status as a threat. If one guy can get disarmed, so can the other guy. I'd say the threat of great bodily harm ended approximately the same time the last stab was administered.

---

Agreed, He ceases to be a threat when he ceases to breathe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoganbeg

Well, that's the question, isn't it? We truly don't know if he was still fighting or not.

(Just as an aside, I think if you do it right the first time there is no need to stab more than once.)

---

IMO, it's very easy to make a lethal one time stab if the BG is polite enough to stay still. However, in the intensity of the fight, I would guess the homeowner was wildly swinging, and continued to do so until the BG stopped moving. I hope I'm never in that position, but I do think I would do exactly the same thing.