Posted on 02/06/2006 11:35:25 AM PST by neverdem
The law says you must act like a coward. In your own home. Even when your life is threatened.
Many states have criminal-friendly "duty to retreat" laws. A victim in his house is mandated to retreat from an attacker until he is cornered. Only then is the prey allowed to use lethal force on the predator. Prosecutors in those states have been known to victimize the victim (such as charging him with manslaughter) who prefers to fire back rather than to back off.
The National Rifle Association has been trying to end the insanity state by state.
Florida came to its senses last year. It enacted a law based on the "Castle Doctrine" -- that one's home is one's castle. A person now is not legally required to be hunted down room by room by an intruder before the victim pulls the trigger. The law allows the victim to shoot back without fear of being prosecuted for being overzealous about protecting his life. And it prohibits criminals from suing their more aggressive victims. All their victims, actually.
"Somebody should not be twice victimized, first by the assailant and then by the legal system trying to destroy his life," says Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, the largest organization representing gun owners after the NRA.
But the Florida law does more.
Car-jackers beware; now one's car is his mobile castle. And better still, if a victim is not in a home or car, now he legally can use deadly force. Sunshine State criminals without a death wish might want to consider career counseling. Or take Horace Greeley's advice to go west. But if they do, they had better hurry.
Wyoming is the latest battleground. The NRA is lobbying there and in 11 other states to repeal duty-to-retreat laws...
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
Besides, juries love it when home intruders get shot.
We've got a real Conservative DA here in York County, who has never indicted a home defender, that I can remember.
There was an incident here a few years ago, where a guy ith a tire iron had smashed a motorist's car window, and was bashing him with it. He was shot 3 times, and the shooter was never indicted.
I answer my front door with my 1911A1 .45cal, concealed behind the door, after all the home invasions we're had in the Lancaster and York areas, in the past 2 years. Just to be safe.
Better to be tried by 12, than carried by 6.
Does anyone know what states have "duty to retreat" statutes?
I would like to know which states to avoid.
We've got a real Conservative DA here in York County, who has never indicted a home defender, that I can remember.
There was an incident here a few years ago, where a guy ith a tire iron had smashed a motorist's car window, and was bashing him with it. He was shot 3 times, and the shooter was never indicted.
I answer my front door with my 1911A1 .45cal, concealed behind the door, after all the home invasions we're had in the Lancaster and York areas, in the past 2 years. Just to be safe.
Better to be tried by 12, than carried by 6.
Whoops, sorry for the double post.
And the gun-control lobby insisted that the law in Florida would make Disney World look like the O.K. Corral.
Didn't happen.
Try www.packing.org and enter your state from the pull-down menu, at top left.
"Retreating is what I'll be doing when I go into the kitchen to grab 2 fingers of single malt to calm my nerves after I've shot (until he/she quits moving) an intruder found on the inside of my abode."
Thats right, rest up with a little booze to take the "edge off". You gotta long night ahead of you: gutting, sawing, digging, filling back in the dirt. Then you gotta clean the house and get ready for work the next morning.
No need to involve the cops ... they have enough to worry about.
Texas Penal Code
CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
Subchapter B
§ 9.21.
(c) The use of deadly force is not justified under this section unless the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is specifically required by statute or unless it occurs in the lawful conduct of war. If deadly force is so justified, there is no duty to retreat before using it.
I'll take my chances with a jury over a thug criminal every time.
Self defense ends recidivism every time.
Works for me ... I've never seen a case in this wonderful state where the shooting of a burglar wasn't no-billed.
Seems to me a homeowner in Iowa was charged for shooting an intruder during a breakin. This was several years ago, I think. I don't remember the outcome.
Can anyone confirm this? I can't so far.
CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
Subchapter B
§ 9.21.
(c) The use of deadly force is not justified under this section unless the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is specifically required by statute or unless it occurs in the lawful conduct of war. If deadly force is so justified, there is no duty to retreat before using it.
Inquiring minds wanted to know!
Regardless of the law, I would never, ever retreat in my own home. Someone breaking into my home will hear two things before he dies. The first will be the action operating on my Remington 870. The second will be the report of the first round being fired. He will not hear the next round.
I'm protecting myself, but I'm protecting my wife even more.
Police officers breaking into my home (I don't know why they would ever do that) must announce themselves loudly in order not to be mistaken for a common burglar or home invasion robber.
That's the way it should be. I would never shoot anyone inside my home if he were just stealing something and not presenting a danger to life.
I like the cut of your jib.
"I would never shoot anyone inside my home if he were just stealing something and not presenting a danger to life.
"
Really? And you know the person's intentions how exactly in a darkened home? You know that the person is unarmed? You know that he means you no harm?
I advise that you rethink this position, just in case. Of course, if you are not armed in your home, or your firearms are locked away and not immediately accessible, it's a moot point, anyhow. I suspect that to be the case.
"Trespassers will be shot, survivors will be prosecuted."
Trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again. There, that's better, S.
Ya might not want the sherrif to smell whisky on your breath
There was a celebrasted case in Iowa in the mid 1960s where a property owner set a spring gun aka "Booby Trap" in an unoccupied dwelling in order to catch burglar(s). He did and was pronptly sued and lost as I recall.
Two problems with the property owners actions:
1) It is illegal in Iowa and most other states, as well, to set up spring guns aka "Booby Traps"
2) The house was not occupied at the time.
Perhaps this is what you were thinking about,eh?
Regards
alfa6 ;>}
The cost to repair the hole in my house after a .44 goes thru him, and the cost of the cleaning bill, and the tv that broke when he dropped it, and the time off work for legal issues, far outweighs what I have in my house that could be stolen.
Besides, as I said, if there were no danger to life, whatever I have in my home that could be stolen, is not worth a human life. That is not to say, that I would not have my weapon trained on him, as one is always near the bed.
good good good.
one of the things I miss about living in Louisiana - someone sets one toe across your property line, you can pwn him if you so desire.
here in GA, it is the "threshhold" of the home.
You're dreaming. Forensics would pick up the blood trail in a nanosecond.
No statute can override the lawful actions of a person defending himself on his own property.
In my world it is not possible to be overzealous when protecting a life.
all theives of individual's property should be killed.
in stealing a material possession or money from an individual, they rob the victim of portions of life: that portion of life traded to acquire the possession or money, and that portion of life to be traded to replace it.
time is the one resource you can never replace, and never know how much you have left until you zero your account.
anyone who takes time from me in that manner is a dead man.
So, you let him rob you and leave ... and at his next stop down the street he rapes or kills someone.
No harm, no foul, right?
Would you kill a poisonous snake in your yard?
Well, I did say you'd have to be a little careful about the blood trail. Lighten up, Francine...
Not me. Too cumbersome. Buy a Sig P226 .40 S&W with laser grips. Much more effective at short range.
http://sigarms.com/products/newproducts.asp
We are obviously different. A material possesion can be replaced, a life cannot. My tv is not a portion of my life, that is worth killing over.
Thanks !
I draw a different line. If I'm not home, the cretin can take whatever he wishes. I have insurance. If I'm home, he dies...not because he is stealing my junk, but because he poses a threat to the safety of myself and my loved ones.
I'm a terrific snap shot. I grew up hunting quail in the chapparal in Southern California. The little chickens take off with a whir of wings, and you have just about a second to take them before they dive into another bush. I rarely missed.
That's why I arm myself with a shotgun, rather than a pistol. My 870 shoots where I think it to shoot. It hits my shoulder ready to fire at what I'm thinking of hitting. I cannot do that with a pistol.
I guess, I should just go out and kill the guy that speeds and cuts me off on the highway too, because 20 miles down the road, he may run into someone?
Yes, I kill poisonous snakes. Most thieves, if not armed, will do what you tell them, if you have a weapon trained on them.
"Not me. Too cumbersome. Buy a Sig P226 .40 S&W with laser grips. Much more effective at short range."
Not so, by any means. See my message above. I would choose any scattergun for home defense over any handgun. Period.
Maryland is one.
That is ridiculous. Did you read anything I wrote?
you are correct... we are different: I know what money is.
my next TV, when I get around to it, shall cost about $2,000.00USD
call that 250 working hours spent to aquire that sum (minus Uncle's cut).
call that five weeks of my productive life, gone, essentially enslaved to the whim of a thief.
when a man breaks into my home and enslaves me, he becomes a tyrant and loses all claims to a right to my sufferance of his existence.
death to such a tyrant.
so should it ever be for tyrants.
And the part about my .44 trained on him? If there is no threat to life, I won't shoot..as I said, the cost of repair, cleanup, and legal fees, would not be worth what he was stealing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.