A home invader's last break-in (NM)

[dboutwell]

it's simple, if i break into your house to steal, shoot me!
if you break into my house to steal from me, i shoot you,,,,,,,,,,,,,,lol

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[packinnova]

I simply refuse to be found dead 2 steps out the back door of MY HOME with a bullet in my arse. Retreating from my home is not an option. Your home is your last bastion/refuge.

[walther1]

I know. I was told that here in ND some guy breaks into my place and burgalrizing me, I have to try to withdraw. I'm hoping our state legislature passes a stand your ground law like FL

I am officially dumber because I read that. I hope your state legislature grows a brain and understands that when you are in your home and someone forces themself in, that you shouldn't have to run out the back door like a

Good luck!

[cphilip]

I think you just misunderstood the duty to retreat. It's not applicable in a lot of circumstance. I don't believe any state has a duty to retreat within the home.

[peacefuljeffrey]

I think I heard or read that Massachusetts has that, but I'm not sure -- and it's possible that it's been redressed.

Anyone with certain knowledge of this, please respond.

[dwolsten]

I think I heard or read that Massachusetts has that, but I'm not sure -- and it's possible that it's been redressed.

Anyone with certain knowledge of this, please respond.

Knowing Massachusetts, they probably require you to offer a nice meal to the intruder before he takes your silverware, and that your wife dress in sexy lingerie and offer herself willingly to the intruder as well.

As for the case in Arizona (where I live), it really is shameful that guy was sentenced to prison for protecting himself, but my understanding is that the legislature passed a law just after that putting the burden of proof on the prosecution (they have to prove that it wasn't self-defense), and also that they passed a "Castle law" which means you have no duty to retreat.

[peacefuljeffrey]

It shouldn't have come down to a prosecution in that AZ case, much less a conviction.

- There was no rebuttal possible from the dead guy. No witnesses to contradict the defendant's statement of how it all happened.

- Various investigators said that it appeared to be a self-defense situation, just like the defendant said it was. Again, no witness to contradict the defendant, AND cops said it was probably like he said. So WHY was he prosecuted? The anti-gun DA wanted to make his bones, no doubt.

Why should we believe that they needed a NEW LAW to stipulate that the prosecutor has to prove the defendant guilty?! Duh!

The problems with this case were many (according to what I've read), and include the fact that arguments were allowed to be made regarding choice of ammunition, and how it supposedly indicated that the defendant -- a man who had lived for decades peacefully as a productive member of society -- just wanted to kill someone.

[robinsonre]

+1 to the homeowner.

Most rational people are of the opinion that if you break into a home with malicious intent (whatever that intent may be) you deserve whatever is coming to you in whatever caliber the homeowner chooses.

Regrettably, not all individuals are rational.

[F350]

Here in Misery if you catch an intruder “at the point of entry” you can shoot him. Once inside it reverts to the “reasonable fear of life or grievous bodily injury” standard. So; once inside “legally” he can help himself to a sandwich and a beer while watching your TV and you can’t “legally” do anything unless threatened.

Me> “Honest officer: I warned him and he kept advancing”.
Officer> “Does the deceased have a different version story”?

We have a castle doctrine law prefiled for the coming session of the legislature and are starting to build a grass roots effort to push it.

[peacefuljeffrey]

How on earth could you come to legal trouble for shooting the guy IN the house when you were justified shooting him as he was TRYING to get into the house?!

That seems pretty irrational...