Castle Doctrine Minus The Firearm

[JJVP]

This is a remedy to the problem of excessive force by beating. Had the gentleman fired a gun it would be hard to argue that he used to much gun. It would not be reasonable to say he could stop the bullet if it was no longer necessary.
Not so with a total beat down. That is something that could be stopped at the moment it became no longer necessary for self defense.

I guess what I am asking is......would this person be safer from possible criminal charges had he used a firearm instead of hand to hand?

Michael

There is not enough detail in the article to determine if the homeowner used excessive force. For all we know they struggled and the BG fell hitting his head on the ground. A blow to the head like that could kill someone. When I was a kid I had a friend that died from a head injury when he lost his grip after jumping to grab a swing set bar.

Then again, maybe the homeowner beat the BG with a baseball bat until he got tired of hitting.

Like I said, we need more info before we get the hanging rope.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Hopyard]

This is a remedy to the problem of excessive force by beating. Had the gentleman fired a gun it would be hard to argue that he used to much gun. It would not be reasonable to say he could stop the bullet if it was no longer necessary.
Not so with a total beat down. That is something that could be stopped at the moment it became no longer necessary for self defense.

I guess what I am asking is......would this person be safer from possible criminal charges had he used a firearm instead of hand to hand?

Michael

And that is one darn good question. We had another thread recently in which I glibly joked that there is a reason I practice H2H
3 hours a week, and I would gladly lay on hands and maybe a knife, in lieu of lead. Someone else responded that they would use lead because my way requires exertion and effort and they are lazy. All joking about this aside, you have raised a really good question. If you have an intruder to deal with and the ability to handle him with H2H, are you safer legally to shoot him then to man handle him in a way which might "accidentally" cause lethal injuries which were unintended. (Keeping in mind that
when you stop a threat with lead lethality is an unintended after effect of the attempt to stop the threat too.)

Where's Mitchell when we need him?

[chiefjason]

are you safer legally to shoot him then to man handle him in a way which might "accidentally" cause lethal injuries which were unintended. (Keeping in mind that
when you stop a threat with lead lethality is an unintended after effect of the attempt to stop the threat too.)

Where's Mitchell when we need him?

I think in NC we would be safe to do whatever was necessary. Our new CD really is nice.

14‑51.1. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.
(b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.

[oakchas]

There is sooo little in the article to determine anything... Guy could have been entering, and the owner slammed his head in the door 1-100 times... we don't know...


But if it had been a baseball bat, how does one determine which was the lethal blow, the first or the last, or one halfway through?

On another note... so far, in NC, the CD law has had the desired effect for the homeowners as far as I can see.... I do worry about the use of reasonableness... there's a LOT of wiggle room in that statute... A LOT.

[mlr1m]

Beating someone into submission takes lots of effort. Seems to me it might be easy for a D.A. to convince a Jury that your defense could have ceased before that much damage was done.
Not so with a firearm. You cannot be expected to stop the bullet once it is set in motion.

Michael

[DeathRales]

At least they CAN'T take away his WEAPONS of choice.

[QKShooter]

There was a recent Castle Doctrine case in PA where the homeowner used a hunting crossbow and shot the threat in the chest. The threat expired. I believe that the threat was wielding a baseball bat & was a "relative?" who had threatened to kill the homeowner.

In this case the Castle Doctrine law was extended out to the connected porch...or outside patio.

It was determined that the homeowner was justified in the use of deadly force.

I'm not really up on the intricate or exact details - I just caught part of it on the car radio.

[oneshot]

Unfortunately, Society has failed these cretins and made that line of work attractive. How many jobs do you think he pulled off without encountering the kind of resistance that ended his career? Reminds me of what the Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney said, ""If you go into a store,with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot".

]Remove the part that I highlighted and I would be in full agreement with your post.[/B]Michael

That was a bit sarcastic of me, yes.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Glad I read your next post B4 blasting you!!!!!!!!!!


From article:

In 2010, Robinson pleaded guilty to breaking and entering, a felony, according to Franklin County Common Pleas Court records.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^BG was a repeat offender^^^^^^^^

Now hes a D*&d offender.

The homeowner will/should not be worrying about anything, as long as its all above board/legit.

[boatail]

I agree with ya 100%. I was making the point that if enough people took their duty to defend themselves and their families that home invasions and robberies would be much too risky of an occupation. Not really trying to remove personal responsibility for the criminals actions. Just adding some personal responsiblility for the general populace.
I know it's a fools errand. I cannot even convince some people close to me that their are wolves in society and one is well served to be able to meet a threat with the appropriate amount of force in return.

Thats it in a nutshell, what are you willing to put up with? PC be damned, if every law abiding person fought back like a righteous banshee against unlawfull attacks, eventually, everyone would come to accept the fact that, that behaviour will not be tolerated OR protected by lawyers.

[Ducmonster]

We certainly need more information to do any more than speculate as to what really happened.
The thing I noticed is the article said this:

"Witnesses told police that a homeowner caught Robinson attempting to break into the back of his home at 1765 Bruck St. and confronted him."

It's the attempting to break into part of this that makes me wonder how this will play out. What if this is a case of a scrawny drug addict who gets caught
by the 6' 5" 280 lb owner that has a strong dislike for people messing with his stuff who then goes ape Sh$t on this guy?

[boatail]

We certainly need more information to do any more than speculate as to what really happened.
The thing I noticed is the article said this:

"Witnesses told police that a homeowner caught Robinson attempting to break into the back of his home at 1765 Bruck St. and confronted him."

It's the attempting to break into part of this that makes me wonder how this will play out. What if this is a case of a scrawny drug addict who gets caught
by the 6' 5" 280 lb owner that has a strong dislike for people messing with his stuff who then goes ape Sh$t on this guy?

What is wrong with that scenario? Does he have to be smaller and scrawnier to be justified?

[l1a1]

Maybe his point was whether or not the bad guy had actually made entry. I'm guessing the law varies from state to state.

[boatail]

Maybe his point was whether or not the bad guy had actually made entry. I'm guessing the law varies from state to state.

That may be one of those "fine points of law" whether or not they actually stepped foot into the home or just kicked the door in, but to me, they are the same. Anyone who breaks in or attempts to break in my home and threaten me or my family with harm, will be shot. I don't care how scrawny they are.

[Cold Shot]

There is sooo little in the article to determine anything... Guy could have been entering, and the owner slammed his head in the door 1-100 times... we don't know...


But if it had been a baseball bat, how does one determine which was the lethal blow, the first or the last, or one halfway through?

On another note... so far, in NC, the CD law has had the desired effect for the homeowners as far as I can see.... I do worry about the use of reasonableness... there's a LOT of wiggle room in that statute... A LOT.

A clean blow from a bat would kill somebody in one shot.

[l1a1]

That may be one of those "fine points of law" whether or not they actually stepped foot into the home or just kicked the door in, but to me, they are the same. Anyone who breaks in or attempts to break in my home and threaten me or my family with harm, will be shot. I don't care how scrawny they are.

I am in complete agreement with you on that point, but...

Unfortunately, the fine points of the law and the difference between right and wrong can be decidedly different things in the eyes of the law.