As was pointed out to me in another thread. You really need to know what is policy for your local DA. I have suffered from the political nature of the appointed DA system in some pretty horrific ways. You might need to know for a fact that the intruder has to be armed in your DA’s personal opinion or by his prosecution history. No matter the law, the DA can do things that will blow your mind . It is a very corrupt system IMO. Learn your locals. ( ::: In jest might I suggest this rather silly idea. ::::: Might need to have an unregistered gun wiped clean, bullets and all, handy just in case for your intruder to carry. YMMV::
In general, you can only use potentially deadly force when you believe you are in imminent danger and your life (or someone else’s life) is threatened. This means, for example, that you cannot shoot someone who is running out of your house with your TV in their arms…
You do not shoot to kill; you shoot to stop the threat. Any death is incidental.
If that was the same mother who I read about in all the newspapers at the time, then I am glad she was finally pardoned. It could have been 1975, I dont remember the year, but the story was in the Wall Street Journal, the American Rifleman, and all the other papers.
I hope you are right that Massachusetts has now changed.
All I know is, that I was on the mothers side from the beginning as soon as I heard the story, and if I was on her jury, she never would have been convicted in the first place.
If, when the police arrive on the scene, they find a knife in the hand of the dead intruder, isnt that all they need to know to determine that it was legal to stop an armed attacker/intruder, in any state?
Extremely bad advice, not to mention illegal. It only works on TV; in real life, forensic units and detectives are extremely skilled at piecing together what actually happened.
If your life is threatened, then by all means do whatever it takes to stop the threat. Then call the cops. When the cops come tell them you were “scared for your life.” And that’s it – do not consent to an interview by a detective. Simply tell them you want to talk to your lawyer and you have nothing further to say. This is especially important when the shooting was justified and you’re 100% innocent.
You give very good advice(since most people, guilty and innocent, are convicted on their own testimony/statements).
But how could forensics possibly prove that an intruder did not grab a knife from your kitchen or your living room table, and then come at you with it.
Trust me, they’ll figure it out. You will not think of everything and consequently you will mess up in many ways. Not to mention the fact that, after the incident, you will not be thinking clearly, which means you would be in the worst possible state for trying to pull a bluff.
As mentioned above, never attempt to change the scene of the crime by planting evidence. Once they figure out you’re lying your credibly will be irreversibly damaged, which will negate any claim that the homicide was justified. Even if you did get away with it (which is extremely doubtful), you will forever be looking over your shoulder.
I’m a Texan (born and raised), and my understanding is that Texas law allows a person to shoot in defense, well, under the circumstances quoted by xicanorex.
“He needed killin’” isn’t even good grammar, much less good legalese.
