The example in this fark thread made me wonder.
Let’s say a person sees a shadowy figure forcing the back door on their neighbor’s house, and because they are easily spooked they get their gun and shoot the presumed intruder in a panic. The “intruder” turns to to be the neighbor breaking into his own house because he lost his keys. The shooting paralyzes him.
Can the shooter be prosecuted even if they thought they were doing the right thing?
You are asking if you could get in trouble for shooting someone, who might be breaking into somone else’s property? Um, yeah they’d be in all kinds of trouble! The best course of action is to quietly call the police and let them sort it out. If it’s your property, it’s a different matter, though the laws vary by state as to what the homeowner can, and cannot do.
Depends, obviously, on where you are when you shoot the supposed intruder, since the law will vary from place to place.
But your question refers to a hypothetical in which (you thiink) you see an intruder breaking into someone else’s house. This is quite different from the case of someone breaking into your own house when you are in it, and the “self defence against implied threat of violence” kind of defence which a householder might rely on when his own house is invaded is unlikely to be available.
So my guess is that, in most places, you’ll have no defence in the situation you describe. Even if the supposed intruder was a real intruder, you’d still have no defence. You weren’t being threatened with violence, and neither was anybody else.
Neither was anybody else related to you. On the offchance that immediate family lived next door to you, maybe you could use the “defense of loved ones” defense.
As already stated, shooting someone on someone else’s property would get you in trouble. But shooting someone on your own property might not. In 1992, a man in Louisiana shot and killed a Japanese exchange student who went to the wrong house looking for a halloween party. The man was not prosecuted although he was later sued. Link
On the OP’s facts, shooting the guy is not a good answer. I’d suggest calling 911, turning on lights and yelling at the guy (from cover). In some States, you might get away with firing a warning shot to chase him off. Being me, especially if he was hassling my sweet little old lady neighbor, I’d prolly just run over in full asskicking mode–but I wouldn’t recomend that for most people.
If you do shoot him, yeah you can probably be prosecuted in most places. You might have an arguable defense of defense of another depending on local law and other circumstances, but to use it you’ll be rolling the dice with a jury.
That guy was prosecuted and found not guilty. Taken from your link:
“In Baton Rouge, Rodney Peairs, the homeowner who gunned down Yoshi
Hattori, was indicted by a grand jury. He was charged with
manslaughter and put on trial in May. The jury, apprently convinced
that Peairs was well within his rights to blow away an inquiring
teenager, deliberated for just over three hours before acquitting
him.”
Sorry, my mistake. I meant not convicted.
Mississippi has recently passed a “castle doctrine” law - attorney friends of mine say it extends to “protection of others” - I’d still be wary of shooting across other’s property.
Related discussion here
I don’t think the Castle Doctrine would necessarily protect you in this case. I think it requires a more immediate threat of serious bodily harm. As far as I know, Mississippi doesn’t have any case law under the new statute, but I have not researched the issue.
Agreed, Oakminster. If it’s your neighbors property you’d be better off calling the law.
Lets say you shot someone in self-defense. In order for the shooting to be judged legal, each the following must be true:
You must be able to prove each of the above in court of law. If the jury believes one of these was not true, you’re toast.
Some states have a “stand your ground” law. In these states, there is no duty to retreat (i.e. you do not need to prove #4). But you must still prove #1, #2, and #3.
Certainly. Convicted is another thing altogether, of course.
I want to point out to people that it’s no fun at all “just being prosecuted”: tens of thousands of dollars for bail, as much for legal fees, possible loss of job, and so forth.
I find that surprising. I’ve always heard in most states it doesn’t have to be a life or death situation, that you can also use lethal force to defend yourself from severe bodily harm.
Under that criteria wouldn’t it ostensibly be required to convict a woman who shoots someone trying to rape her? Especially if there’s some element which suggests the man did not have any intentions of killing?
Laws vary from state to state.
Too much to quote just in one section for Colorado
(all bolding mine)
and, to the OP, see here
Seems to me, that “occupant” is important. Unless you have a good reason to believe your neighbor is about to be assaulted, kidnapped, or raped, shooting someone breaking into another persons dwelling is bad, m’kay? Of course, there are probably a minimum of 49 other laws in the US concerning this, and IANAL, some restrictions apply, offer void in Cambodia, etc. et al.
Oh, and -
So I guess that I should point out that being shot and killed is no fun at all, either: the bleeding to death and the dying at 16, and so forth. The guy shot a kid who did nothing more than ring his door bell, then went back inside his house while the kid bled to death in his front yard. And your comment is about how being brought to trial was an inconvenience for him? :rolleyes:
The underlying question with regards to the OP is when you can justify using force against a suspected intruder. This case in Baton Rouge really wasn’t about that, since the victim wasn’t an intruder and there was no reason to suspect he posed any kind of threat or was attempting to commit any type of crime – as the shooter himself acknowledged at trial. (In fact, Hattori and his friend had returned to their car before the homeowner emerged from his house and fired his laser-sighted handgun).
As you said “The underlying question with regards to the OP is when you can justify using force against a suspected intruder. This case in Baton Rouge really wasn’t about that”, in fact, my post did not in any way shape or form discuss or mention the “case in baton rouge”, and I fact I hadn’t even clicked on the link. This is GQ, not GQ, I was answering a Question posited by the OP, not
Debating the morality of taking another life.
My fault, DrDeth. I thought you were replying to Oakminister’s comment on the case. I apologize for my mischaracterization.
Your point, I think, was that people can be prosecuted in these types of cases even when it’s reasonably clear that they were acting in self-defense. Mine was that they can be acquitted, even when it’s clear they were not.
Colorado Revised Statutes §18-1-704.5 (2002):
Emphasis added.
On a related topic, can you claim self defense if you shoot someone who’s trying to rob you? Your life wouldn’t technically be in danger I suppose if they really just wanted your stuff and then left…