Argument escalates

This is a discussion on Argument escalates within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; No disrespect to anyone but I need to understand why this shooting was deemed justifiable. Earlier this summer I attended the CWP class and were ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 24 of 24

Thread: Argument escalates

  1. #16
    Member Array phaed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Fort Huachuca, AZ
    Posts
    453
    No disrespect to anyone but I need to understand why this shooting was deemed justifiable. Earlier this summer I attended the CWP class and were told that you cannot shoot someone unless your life is in imminent danger. (AOJ)
    that your "life is in imminent danger" can be assumed when someone has broken into your house/yard/vehicle/etc, whichever is applicable to your state's castle doctrine (assuming it has one). you do not need to see a weapon, nor do you need the criminal to threaten you in any way. you just need to be fearful of your safety. it sounds like your instructor didn't give you the full class.

    p.s. i'm not saying that applies to this case, which may be seen as a special circumstance.
    War is not the ugliest of things. Worse is the decayed state of moral feeling which thinks nothing is worth a war. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which he cares for more than his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free. -J.S. Mill

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Senior Member Array slimjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    687

    Info on Castle Doctrine...

    Each state differs with respect to the specific instances in which the Castle Doctrine can be invoked, and what amount of retreat or non-deadly resistance (if any) is required before deadly force can be used.

    In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

    An intruder must be making an attempt to forcibly enter a premises uninvited

    The intruder must be acting illegally -- i.e. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to shoot officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties

    The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm, or death, upon an occupant of the home

    The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit a felony

    The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit arson

    The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit burglary

    The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force

    In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an office of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties.

    Note: the term "home" is used because most states only apply their Castle Doctrine to a place of residence; however, some states extend the protection to other legally-occupied places such as automobiles and places of business.

    States with a Castle Law w/ Stand-your-ground:

    Alabama
    Alaska
    Arizona
    Connecticut
    Florida
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois
    Indiana
    Kansas (refer to "Use of force in defense of a person; no duty to retreat.", § 21-3211)
    Kentucky
    Louisiana
    Maine
    Massachusetts
    Michigan
    Minnesota
    Mississippi
    Missouri
    Montana
    North Carolina
    Pennsylvania
    Rhode Island
    Texas
    Tennessee 2007 Tenn. Pub. Acts Ch. 210 (Amends Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-11-611)
    Utah

  4. #18
    Senior Member Array jframe38's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    620
    Thanks for the great post Slimjim.
    This shooting sounds like some sort of instigation took place previously.
    I got the "Full Class" as the law here in SC differs. We do have a "no retreat/backdown" type law but I couldn't just shoot someone on my property because they want to take a punch at me.
    Here is another scenario brought up in my CWP class:
    You walk in the front door of your house and there is a big BG holding your HD TV, ready to exit thru the back door. I could not shoot him unless he was in the act of raising the TV to smash me with it.
    If he went running out the back door w/TV I can't shoot him. I couldn't shoot him getting in his car. I would have to call the police and let them take over.
    So this is where I'm coming from.

  5. #19
    Member Array *SA-XD4ME*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    AR
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by slimjim View Post
    Each state differs with respect to the specific instances in which the Castle Doctrine can be invoked, and what amount of retreat or non-deadly resistance (if any) is required before deadly force can be used.

    In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

    An intruder must be making an attempt to forcibly enter a premises uninvited

    The intruder must be acting illegally -- i.e. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to shoot officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties

    The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm, or death, upon an occupant of the home

    The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit a felony

    The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit arson

    The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit burglary

    The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force

    In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an office of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties.

    Note: the term "home" is used because most states only apply their Castle Doctrine to a place of residence; however, some states extend the protection to other legally-occupied places such as automobiles and places of business.

    States with a Castle Law w/ Stand-your-ground:

    Alabama
    Alaska
    Arizona
    Connecticut
    Florida
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois
    Indiana
    Kansas (refer to "Use of force in defense of a person; no duty to retreat.", § 21-3211)
    Kentucky
    Louisiana
    Maine
    Massachusetts
    Michigan
    Minnesota
    Mississippi
    Missouri
    Montana
    North Carolina
    Pennsylvania
    Rhode Island
    Texas
    Tennessee 2007 Tenn. Pub. Acts Ch. 210 (Amends Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-11-611)
    Utah
    I believe you can add Arkansas to that list as well. I will check to make sure. From what I under stand Arkansas has this law as well.
    Last edited by *SA-XD4ME*; December 4th, 2007 at 12:52 AM. Reason: looked at the laws

  6. #20
    VIP Member Array cphilip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,183
    You can add South Carolina to that list...

  7. #21
    VIP Member Array peacefuljeffrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    south Florida
    Posts
    3,168
    Quote Originally Posted by jframe38 View Post
    No disrespect to anyone but I need to understand why this shooting was deemed justifiable. Earlier this summer I attended the CWP class and were told that you cannot shoot someone unless your life is in imminent danger.
    Don't forget that in many places fear of "grievous bodily harm" is also justification for shooting (or using otherwise deadly physical force). Would you say that someone should not shoot if "all" the bad guy says he wants to do is break both your arms?


    Could more incidents like this cause the anti's to come out of the closet and state that the "castle law" is being abused and could come under attack.
    Hahahahaahaaaa! Do you really think that antis wait for actual logical justification before they knee-jerk attack reasonable laws like our CCW laws and our Castle Doctrine?

    They challenge these laws even before they go down on paper, friend. There is no reason to think that if we didn't "abuse" the Castle Doctrine they would not challenge it just for the simple reason that they don't like it.

    Being on our best behavior, with stupendously safe track records and law-abidingness does not keep gun owners safe from attack by anti-gunners. We might as well do what serves us best since we can count on having to fight back against them no matter what we do. Why win their battles for them?

  8. #22
    Senior Member Array jframe38's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    620
    PeacefulJeffrey...nicely stated to broaded my view of the situation when it comes to the anti's. I'm learning quickly.

  9. #23
    Member Array bigiceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    491
    Where I see this particular case could get messy is the background history of the neighbors. Texas law specifies that the shooter cannot be the aggressor, even in their own home. If these two have a history it could point to the homeowner luring the deceased into the home to murder him.

    That being said those who wish to second guess should really put themselves in someone elses shoes. When someone comes at you that is bigger and stronger and younger, do you know what their full intent is? If you have a firearm, they can see it, and still advance, is that something that can be interpreted as life-threatening?

    At the distances inside normal people's homes you have less than a second to decide how much force is enough to protect yourself. After that you are in hand-to-hand combat and it is up to the winner to decide what happens to the loser. Is taking your gun away going to satisfy them? Maybe they will just give you a couple black eyes and a cracked rib, that isn't life threatening. Do I have to take the whooping and find out if they really do kill me before I decide how to defend myself? Just because a person is unarmed doesn't make them a non-threatening person. If they kick my butt and take my weapon, they are no longer unarmed are they?

    It is not a free-fire zone in Texas, and this isn't the wild west badlands. The laws are still more unforgiving to the criminal than the victim, though.
    But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself...
    "Baa."
    LTC(RET) Dave Grossman

    Revolutionary War Veterans Association Shooter Qualification: Cook

  10. #24
    Distinguished Member Array lacrosse50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,283
    IIRC, Ohio also has a Castle Doctrine. The shooting sounds like there may be more (a lot more) beneath the surface. Hopefully, for the shooters sake, he didn't start the argument, or "entice" the injured man onto his property.
    The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
    -Herbert Spencer

    NRA Life Member

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Help me out with argument!
    By Chemistry08 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: December 5th, 2008, 02:24 PM
  2. Bar Fight Escalates into Justifiable Homicide
    By CT-Mike in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 14th, 2008, 03:56 PM
  3. Bar Fight Escalates
    By CT-Mike in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: December 24th, 2007, 10:41 PM
  4. Need help with Argument
    By PaulG in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: October 16th, 2006, 09:01 AM
  5. Here is the old argument?
    By scott Laird in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: September 8th, 2006, 11:02 PM

Search tags for this page

2007 escalates in luboock tx

Click on a term to search for related topics.