18 total posts
From your link
Not to worry about it
You're name isn't on the list.
had a case in Raleigh NC
over 15 years now.
Guy came home, two guys walking out of his house carrying either the tv or stereo, I don't remember what just that it was home electronics. Homeowner grabbed a gun from his vehicle, yelled at them to stop, they supposely took off running and he shot them.
I don't even remember how it turned out now. The shooting made the news, the trial didn't. That in itself makes me think it was probably dropped or reduced.
The general "expert" opinion was the homeowner was guilty of second degree murder. If the threat isn't to you, you're denied any defense. Well, to your or another person well being. Meaning if were in the yard, a couple of thugs walked up and started to set your house on fire you can't try to stop them yourself if there is no one in the house.
I understand the view that property thief or damage isn't worth a human life. I don't know how threatened I would have to be to intentional kill someone. However, I'm not sure I agree with the idea that a citizen can't use force to stop thieves from stealing. Under that doctrine taken to extreme if you tried to physically restrain someone from burning your house you're the one committing assault and they can use self defense to kill you.
That would be obviously idoitic
He was said to have been shielding his 2 month old
Today's report said the gun was in the car seat so easily available once the robber took off. I'd not store a gun in a car seat while driving, however. When he retrieved it, we don't know. I'd imagine that, if he claimed the robber turned and pointed the gun while leaving, the detectives will have to accept his account of the story.
repeated advice, tho very cynical
if you shoot someone, even in your house, make sure they're dead, then there's only one story.
Well, yes and no
If the robber was shot seven or eight times, a prosecutor could try to argue that you did more than you needed to do to protect yourself and your home.
Hard call on shooting a thief in the back as he's running away. My inclination is to side with "the danger was over" argument. Shooting him while the robbery was in progress would have been another story.
shoot for the legs?
At least then you can claim you wanted to keep your property, stop him for police, and avoid killing him. Of course he could sue you, but...
Sadly today even if he was robbing you
handicapping him in todays society and legal system would probably put you in jail and all your property in his name.
but I've never given up my right to protect not only my life, but also my property.
that can be like pedestrain has the right of way
you may have the right of way, but it doesn't help if refuse to yield to a truck.
Well...one gets to make a decision as to
what is justifiable and what is smart. I've never been robbed but know people who have been and this includes a bank employee who has had a gun in her face several times. I understand that there isn't much time to think and that one is overwhelmed with fear which can quickly turn to anger. When that happens, the smart side of a person might disappear. One who has just been robbed might be justifiably angry. It's just a human emotion. The judges and courts get to decide if human emotion is allowed to prevail over smart thinking.
I've been robbed at gunpoint twice
In the first case, had I been armed and trained in such situations, I might have been able to stop it. I knew they were coming up behind me and there was nothing I could do but brace myself. If I'd been armed but not trained, I probably would have been too frightened to take action.
The second time I was taken completely by surprise, and if I'd had a gun I probably would not have been able to use it to protect myself. He didn't frisk me so it wouldn't have been stolen from me if he hadn't noticed it.
If I actually pulled a gun on someone who had a gun
and I felt threatened, I'm not sure I'd stop firing until the gun was empty. I wouldn't fire unless I though he was going to shoot me, and in that case, you don't stop until he quits moving.
That said, I don't even own a gun right now.
It's hard to guess.....
.....if you've never been in that situation. It's possible that it would go just as you said, and also possible that you might shoot once and react to that so strongly that you can't do it again. I've never been there so I have no idea how I'd be.
The idea of shooting in the legs is just silly. That only happens in the movies. Any cop will tell you that you don't point a gun at someone unless you're prepared to use it, and you don't "shoot to wound." Maybe a top marksman could do it but most people should just aim for the biggest target, which is the torso.
Did the robber still have his property?
I believe it was either cash or his wallet
Wallets get discarded except for credit cards. I'd think even a dumb crook would know not to take identifiable stolen property into the ER knowing a gunshot wound would mean talking to police.
Criminals are rarely clever.I attended at a traffic accident
in Michigan as an EMT where the guy who caused the accident was fleeing the scene of a robbery (not with a firearm) as we discovered later. He had the wallets (2 victims) on him. Because it was a traffic accident, the police attended and questioned the man, then arrested him on a traffic charge. They didn't find the extra wallets until they got him to the station.