Remember, when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away. :rolleyes:
But then again, I think we’ve seen what happens when citizens don’t take initiative and instead call and wait for the police to arrive…
Just out of curiosity are you (general US citizen “you”) allowed to shoot someone in defense of someone else (particularly strangers in public areas)? (Assume you are appropriately licensed to carry a gun wherever this happens)
Depends on the locality, but I believe that in most places in the US it is considered legally justified to use force to defend the life of an innocent third party. It is in my state, at least.
In general, it is the same standard that one could apply to use deadly force to protect himself, that is when a reasonable person would have a fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury.
That standard is pretty universal. Some states allow you to use deadly force against fleeing felons, to protect property, and a few others, but I would be very reluctant to use this justification…
It seems to me that could apply (serious bodily injury) to many bar brawls.
I mean how are we to decide when two people beating on each other equates to “serious bodily injury” sufficient to shoot one or the other? I’ve witnessed fights that sent one or both participants to the hospital with bloodied faces and broken bones.
Not to mention it seems to crack the door a bit on vigilante justice.
Well… I consider being ‘forced off the road’ to be assault. Yah?
I consider a car to be a deadly weapon in such a case.
I don’t have much issue with the gentleman’s actions.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml This story was on the tube yesterday. A guy calls the police and tells them intruders are breaking into neighbors house. He tells the cops he is getting his shotgun. While still on line he shoots and kills both of them.
You ok with this. ?
Sure, and so is Texas law: http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/01/burglary.shooting.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch as the man was cleared.
In Texas, there exists a castle doctrine which allows force, including lethal force if necessary, to be used to protect life or property. What I find ridiculous is the people claiming this was a “racially motivated” incident. Well, you had two illegal Colombian immigrants breaking into a neighbor’s house – should he have instead went out and found two white criminals to kill instead? It’s asinine how often the race card is drawn. If you’re asking if I feel pity for two illegal immigrant criminals breaking into houses and learning about Texas’ castle doctrine firsthand, the answer is no.
Some states don’t allow concealed firearm owners to carry in bars. Texas, for example, prohibits carrying in any place that generates 51% or more of its revenue from the sale of alcohol.
Reading the article the shooter disobeyed repeated and clear commands by law enforcement to stay in his home. He personally was not at risk till he left his house. If the robbers had broken into his home then fine but they didn’t and almost certainly wouldn’t have (and if they had he was certainly prepared to deal with them).
Not to mention, as the dispatcher said several times, killing someone over some random loot goes too far. I tend to agree. Two guys dead over a bag of random loot?
Finally, the person who authored the bill did not mean for it to be used this way. Perhaps the language currently allows for it, I do not know but I suspect they will be wanting to tighten that language a bit.
Your ‘bag of random loot’ example is completely apropos. Yes. If you steal something, especially from someone’s home whilst breaking into it, that doesn’t belong to you, and someone is there to stop you, thems the breaks.
CBS ran this on the AM show this morning, Diane Sawyer (I think) says “they weren’t armed as it turned out, they had only a tire iron, no weapons” WHAT? No weapons? Lemme give you a bonk with a tire iron Diane, see if you think it’s a weapon or not. Sure. He could have stayed in his house, and for all practical purposes should have, but I say? Good for him, two less mutts the state of Texas has to feed, clothe and house. They died for that bag of random loot. If you could ask them if it was worth it. My guess is that they’d say no.
Don’t think a dispatcher is considered law enforcement.
So, would you say that the death penalty should be imposed for robbers? I mean as part of the legal system…you rob someone and if convicted they go on death row.
I think there is a knee-jerk, “Good, criminals need to learn their lesson” without really thinking through the implications. Not only of what effectively is a death penalty for that crime but a death penalty administered without due process of law. Would you feel differently if it was your son who was gunned down in those circumstances? Are you ok with a country where the law is meted out by vigilantes?
According to my State’s AG (as reported by my CCW instructor) shooting to wound is treated exactly the same under my State’s law as shooting to kill. And firing a “warning shot” is almost as bad, and without justification would be something along the lines of reckless endangerment, or worse.
Don’t ask me to explain the fine points, I’m not a lawyer…
In my State, absolutely. They don’t have to be known to me, just a perceived “innocent victim” who is in danger of losing their life or suffering serious bodily harm. I can also shoot to defend my motor vehicle while I or an innocent is inside of it. If I’m outside, and a guy jumps in my car and takes off, and no innocent bystander/family member/whatever is in the car, I cannot justifiably shoot at him. And pets don’t count…
Are you OK with a country where you’re not allowed to defend yourself against someone breaking into your fucking house? I’m not.
That’s more than a little bit of a misrepresentation of the laws of the United States. Can you make a point without resorting to rhetoric?
What rhetoric? Perhaps not the law in the United States but Texas law seems cool with it.
The bit that prompted this was the guy who left his house to stop a burglary in a neighbors house. He was not being threatened. He was safe in his home with a shotgun on the phone with police dispatch. He was on the phone for many minutes and was told repeatedly by dispatch to NOT leave his house at all.
Read the damn article! How is it anything but vigilante justice? I know he claims he was under threat from the two men when he shot them. But of course he left his house knowing full well what was out there and placed himself in the line of that threat. He said he was under threat from them because they came in his yard yet managed to shoot both men in the back (aren’t people running away from you off limit to shoot?).
Yeah, I know he was acquitted. So was OJ. Nevertheless I am not sure you can get a more clear case of vigilante justice and Texas gave the nod to it.
No one was breaking into the guy’s house that was quoted earlier and put me on this line of debate.
and you would be correct.
That ain’t what I said OR what I meant and you well know it.
There are, shall we say, occupational hazards, to being a scumbag, that aren’t necessarily doled out by the legal system. You do wrong, wrong things happen, it’s that simple. My heart would break if it were my son. I would not blame Joe Horn, I would blame my son.
That’s personal responsibility at work right there. If my son was just walking down the street and Horn capped him I’d strangle Horn with my bare hands, and use him to fertilize my rose garden (if I had either a son or a rose garden) but this wasn’t the case. Two dirtbags were breaking into a house when this man confronted them, they allegedly moved toward him in a threatening manner [/irony] and he shot them. You can rest assured that is a safer block today because of Joe Horn.