I wouldn’t call that justified. So the guy was armed with a milk carton? But, I can see how it might not rise to the level of manslaughter or murder, or any other chargeable offense. . . . but, I do think more information, particularly about the intruder’s background, might color my opinion.
I know this one.
Legality has nothing to do with it. Castle doctrine is not bullshit.
Yep.
To me it’s harder to justify – in the other case the woman can’t just run for it because she has her daughter to think of. In this case, it’s just Joe and he can get out and leave only possessions behind (and a cat which can run out or hide too).
People who believe in a duty to retreat must’ve never lived in an apartment or condo. What am I gonna do? Jump out the window?
How does this stop the immediate threat?
:rolleyes: back at you.
Not justified. The only reason Joe is scared of this man is his mental state, and that is not sufficient. There’s no knife and no indication of threatening action. There is just no indication that anyone’s life is in danger or that anyone is in threat of serious bodily harm.
Also, the castle doctrine as an idea is not in and of itself BS, but the application often is. It should not mean you get to shoot any intruder in your home. It should always be about someone who is a danger to life or limb, and applies to requirement to flee the home. It should not apply to merely stepping out of the way when someone comes towards you.
You seem to miss the point of what the duty to retreat is. It specifically does not apply to situations where retreat is impossible or impractical. It’s specifically saying “if you have the ability to retreat from a dangerous situation, then lethal force is not justified.”
You don’t need the castle doctrine to argue that you shouldn’t have to jump out the window.
Then why did you mention it?
Says you. I say different. And in answer to scumpup (since he got you to do his answering for him) it’s bullshit because it privileges location of action for no clear reason. If it’s right to kill in self defence, it’s right no matter where you’re located. The focus should be on the actions being defended against at the time, not where they take place.
The two scenarios are totally different. In the original thread (in which, by the way, I voted that shooting was totally justified), the intruder is speaking coherently but still ignoring clear instructions, while moving towards a weapon (which he gets very close to by the time Jodie shoots). Which is exactly what a murderer might do to try and lull you into a false sense of security before attacking you. In this thread, there is no weapon, and given Joe has his gun trained on the intruder, he can shoot the moment the intruder makes a sudden move/puts his hand in his pocket, should he feel the need to do so. But unless and until that happens, I can’t see how it’s justified.
Not to mention that she has a child to protect in the other thread, which does not apply in this one (I don’t think even most cat lovers would agree that a human should be killed to avoid potential injury to a cat).
Perhaps exit the same way you entered?
Not if Joe had a good lawyer. 
Of course, Joe can certainly – and credibly – claim he feared for his safety. But we’re omniscient viewers of the scene. We know his abilities.
Why do Americans constantly use the word ‘homeowner’ in these types of discussions? Would it be morally justified if Joe was renting?
I think mainly it’s because something like 2/3s or 3/4s of us own homes, and many of us associate renting with our younger/college years when we were sharing the place with roommates. Having drunken strangers in your apartment is not so unusual at that time of life, but by the time you’re a “responsible homeowner” it’s a cause for concern.
To a lesser degree, all renters have the possibility that the landlord or a manager has come on the property to check things out or make repairs. Rules vary somewhat, but usually the landlord has to give 24 hours notice before they do that. Back in my days as a resident manager, I had at least two occasions where the tenant forgot about the notice and we surprised each other.
I do not understand the level of concern for people who go places they should not. Crazy person? Who did not keep him where they should have? Drooling, saying “Sir,” being young, being old, makes no difference, If you broke a window to get in, I am fine with killing you from behind or all the way up to not at all. It is then my choice
It is not my job to figure it out, it is theirs.
I do think that other critters are many times worth more than many of the people I have known.
Above are things to think about before you break into my house. Or any house IMO.
I’m in the “legally OK, morally questionable” side on this one. On the one hand, if I were in Joe’s shoes – a large, skilled fighter with a firearm and the home field advantage, facing a scrawny person apparently unarmed – I sure hope that I would feel confident enough to attempt to resolve the situation without violence. On the other, I believe that the law cannot justly compel this behavior for all persons in the case of a home invasion.
I also feel that a mentally unstable person who unwittingly poses a danger has less culpability than someone who poses a danger knowingly – but for the person endangered, the level of risk that compassion merits is a matter of personal discretion.
I was thinking the other day of folks on the board who don’t believe there’s an afterlife, and when you die here, that’s it forever. And you would shoot someone in the back who is standing in your kitchen drinking milk. That’s enough for them to never exist anymore, for their life to gone because they climbed in the wrong window. It’s unfathomable. But good to know the view is out there.
Yeah, talked myself out of that one – if you think this is it for you too, I guess that’s where your justification comes from. You’d keep your life no matter what…?
Basically. It comes down to “Is this person a credible threat to my life?” And “they broke into my home” is a pretty big check mark in the “yes” column. There are other factors to consider in any real situation, but that act of grave violation of a person’s sanctuary already indicates either unsoundness of mind or hostile intent.