December 3rd, 2007 10:34 PM
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.
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)
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
December 3rd, 2007 10:53 PM
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:
Kansas (refer to "Use of force in defense of a person; no duty to retreat.", § 21-3211)
Tennessee 2007 Tenn. Pub. Acts Ch. 210 (Amends Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-11-611)
December 4th, 2007 12:21 AM
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.
December 4th, 2007 12:47 AM
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.
Originally Posted by slimjim
Last edited by *SA-XD4ME*; December 4th, 2007 at 12:52 AM.
Reason: looked at the laws
December 4th, 2007 10:49 PM
You can add South Carolina to that list...
December 5th, 2007 06:13 AM
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?
Originally Posted by jframe38
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?
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.
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?
December 5th, 2007 06:29 PM
PeacefulJeffrey...nicely stated to broaded my view of the situation when it comes to the anti's. I'm learning quickly.
December 6th, 2007 05:55 AM
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...
LTC(RET) Dave Grossman
Revolutionary War Veterans Association Shooter Qualification: Cook
December 6th, 2007 09:05 AM
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.
NRA Life Member
By Chemistry08 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: December 5th, 2008, 02:24 PM
By CT-Mike in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Last Post: January 14th, 2008, 03:56 PM
By CT-Mike in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Last Post: December 24th, 2007, 10:41 PM
By PaulG in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: October 16th, 2006, 09:01 AM
By scott Laird in forum Defensive Carry Guns
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.
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors