Posted on 07/06/2011 8:25:21 PM PDT by Nachum
CHEHALIS, Wash. - An Onalaska man who shot and killed a man who he thought was going to rob him will spend more than five years in prison. Lewis County Judge Nelson Hunt sentenced Ronald Brady to the maximum possible sentence, 63 months. A jury found Brady guilty of manslaughter last month. "I think the jury missed this one," said Jack Tipping, a friend of Brady. "This is a great victory for burglars."
(Excerpt) Read more at king5.com ...
By the way, your post above is a very poorly thought out post.
You may be in TX, for instance, which has laws that do allow the property owner a lot of leeway.
But even so, to say the law allows ..... is total BS because there are 49 other states all of which have their own interpretation as to how and when force can be used.
So a flat statement that the law allows...is totally incorrect.
A correctly stated post would be “In my state, XX, the law allows....”
Acting in NC as though you are in TX will get you put under the jail.
We allow some things in NC that are not legal in TX.
So name your state and post the link when you advise people to shoot.
You were wrong, get over it.
Better not try it in Mississippi either.
Castle Doctrine laws, or “castle laws,” are based on very old English common law, which recognized that someone’s home is a place where they should be free from illegal trespassing or violent attacks. As such, the laws gave citizens the right to defend their home (their “castle”), from violent attacks or intrusions, to the extent of using deadly force if necessary. Each state’s laws are different with regards to the Castle Doctrine, with some having no law at all, all the way to the other extreme, which is where Mississippi is on it. Basically, the law allows you to defend your home against attack or intrusion without criminal or civil consequences.
In 2006, Mississippi enacted one of the nation’s most extensive “Castle Doctrine” laws. Instead of making an entirely new law, Mississippi’s castle doctrine comes from an amendment to the already existing “justifiable homicide” statute. Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-15. This law reads, in relevant part:
1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement or omission of another shall be justifiable in the following cases:
(e) When committed by any person in resisting any attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony upon him, or upon or in any dwelling, in any occupied vehicle, in any place of business, in any place of employment or in the immediate premises thereof in which such person shall be;
(f) When committed in the lawful defense of one’s own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished;
A “dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind that has a roof over it, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, including a tent, that is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night, including any attached porch;
(3) A person who uses defensive force shall be presumed to have reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily harm, or the commission of a felony upon him or another or upon his dwelling, or against a vehicle which he was occupying, or against his business or place of employment or the immediate premises of such business or place of employment, if the person against whom the defensive force was used, was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if that person had unlawfully removed or was attempting to unlawfully remove another against the other person’s will from that dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof and the person who used defensive force knew or had reason to believe that the forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. This presumption shall not apply if the person against whom defensive force was used has a right to be in or is a lawful resident or owner of the dwelling, vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or is the lawful resident or owner of the dwelling, vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if the person who uses defensive force is engaged in unlawful activity or if the person is a law enforcement officer engaged in the performance of his official duties;
(4) A person who is not the initial aggressor and is not engaged in unlawful activity shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force under subsection (1)(e) or (f) of this section if the person is in a place where the person has a right to be, and no finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the person’s failure to retreat as evidence that the person’s use of force was unnecessary, excessive or unreasonable.
(5) (a) The presumptions contained in subsection (3) of this section shall apply in civil cases in which self-defense or defense of another is claimed as a defense.
(b) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant acted in accordance with subsection (1)(e) or (f) of this section. A defendant who has previously been adjudicated “not guilty” of any crime by reason of subsection (1)(e) or (f) of this section shall be immune from any civil action for damages arising from same conduct.
If you read this carefully you will see that Mississippi takes the Castle Doctrine to the extreme, not only allowing you to defend your home (porches especially), but also your car, your place of employment, or practically anywhere you have a legal right to be. Also, unlike some states, you do not have to retreat before you take action to defend yourself. Last, but not least, the law added civil immunity (you can’t be sued) if you are forced to defend yourself in accordance with this law.
A couple of quick points about this law:
1.It is limited to the defense of people, not property.
2.It does not affect gun ownership rights in any way (i.e., if you cannot possess a gun for some reason, then this does not confer on you the right to have one).
This law has only been around for four years, and I’ve already had a few cases that have had castle doctrine implications. As always, there are exceptions and nuances to this law, as any other, so do not believe that this law has turned your front porch into a target range. If you have been accused of a crime, and you believe you were within your rights to defend yourself under this law, give me a call and let’s think it through. I am here to help.
In what state do you reside?
Ignoring the question does not do much for your case.
Sorry I didn’t write this,copied from Clarence T. “Gup” Guthrie III.
Thank you for that post.
Even though I have not traveled your state in many years, it is very interesting in that it illustrates my point.
Also of interest to me is that a hasty reading by a person not trained in the law would lead one to believe that one can in your state protect his vehicle or other related property with deadly force when in fact what the law really says is that your vehicle is your castle when you are in it, as is your place of business or other legally owned/leased occupied property.
Thus we get the “make my day” comments.
“That night he waited in his garage with a loaded rifle and when the McKenzies came up his driveway, Brady began shooting.”
No, that wouldn’t cut it in almost any state. It is hard to convince someone you felt threatened because someone else drove into your driveway.
Not as thourough as I would like, but a quickie:
http://www.concealedhandguncarry.com/2.html
Go to the bottom of the page and read the test questions.
“A 3AM, wrong address, a$$h++e, loud mouth, drunk, late luggage delivery guy is fortunate...”
The one time I had someone in my yard at 3 AM, it turned out to be a drunk teen who lived two houses up. That would NOT have been a good time to shoot!
If someone tries to force their way into my house, or is obviously trying a home invasion with weapons, then it all changes. But even then, if I caught someone in the act of opening a window, I would wait to see if they were acting drunk.
From your own post 4: You can’t even shoot people that you know for a fact are going to steal from you and in most states, TX excepted, you can’t even shoot people that you catch in the act of stealing from you.
Practice what you preach.
And there is a nifty thing on the internet called a search engine. Use it yourself to find out what states allow.
In the state of Washington, a private citize has the right to use deadly force to apprehend a felon even if the felon is fleeing and refuses to stop after being warned.
Many states have a “Castle Law,” which allows a homeowner to use deadly force against anyone forcibly entering a home.
Texans can correct me if I’m wrong but my memory is that in the Lone Star State deadly force can be used against anyone trespassing upon the owner’s property-—the yard, driveway, etc.
Wasn’t there the Texas case a couple years ago in which a guy was watching his NEIGHBOR’S property and shot a burglar while he was running away from the neighbor’s house? And the whole thing was recorded on the 911 call he was making even as he aimed his shotgun at the perp?
“I was afraid for my life and fired to stop the threat. That’s all I have to say until my attorney is present.”
unless your state has a stand your ground law.
those laws save people from stupid prosecutors every day.
Most of the prosecutors who go after someone in such a case are more ambitious than they are stupid. Same sort of thing with Nifong and the Duke lacrosse kids. He just got caught at it.
You still do not name your state.
After many requests.
That pretty much labels you.
It is a mistake to influence those in more restrictive states to believe they can live by TX, GA or WA law.
You had better know the law for the state in which the shooting occurs or you get a “go to jail card”.
So I ask one more time: In what state do you reside?
Gee, it is nice for one so intellectually superior to an old red neck to teach me about Google. I never would have known.
OK, so Google says that you live in or near Denver, CO.
Google says you are an old lady.
Google says that at this link you can find the CO law as to the use of lethal force.
Of course many state legislatures have only recently updated their firearm laws and it there may be changes in CO law regarding this subject.
However, you would be well advised to read the law at this link for starters.
www.moffatcountysheriff.com/pdf/CoStatutes.pdf
Which contains the following excerpt:
18-1-706 Use Of Physical Force In Defense Of Property
A person is justified in using reasonably and appropriate physical force upon another
person when and to
the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably
believes to be an attempt
by the other person to commit theft, criminal mischief, or criminal tampering
involving property, but he
may use deadly physical force under these circumstances only in defense of himself
or another as described
in section 18-1-704.
18-1-707 Use Of Physical Force In Making An Arrest Or In Preventing An Escape
1. Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a peace officer is justified in
using reasonable and
appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he
reasonably believes it
necessary:
(a.) To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an
arrested person unless he
knows that the arrest is unauthorized; or
(b.) To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes
to be the use or
imminent use of physical force while effecting or attempting to effect
such an arrest or while
preventing or attempting to prevent such an escape.
2. A peace officer is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person for
a purpose specified in
subsection (1) of this section only when he reasonably believes that it is necessary:
(a.) To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes
to be the use or
imminent use of deadly physical force; or
(b.) To effect an arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody, of a person
whom he reasonably
believes:
(1.) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving
the use or threatened use
of a deadly weapon; or
(2.) Is attempting to escape by the use of a deadly weapon; or
(3.) Otherwise indicates, except through a motor vehicle
violation, that he is likely to
endanger human life or to inflict serious bodily injury to
another unless apprehended
without delay.
3. Nothing in subsection (2)(b) of this section shall be deemed to constitute
justification for reckless or
criminally negligent conduct by a peace officer amounting to an offense against or
with respect to innocent
persons whom he is not seeking to arrest or retain in custody.
4. For purposes of this section, a reasonable belief that a person has committed an
offense means a
reasonable belief in facts or circumstances which if true would in law constitute an
offense. If the believed
facts or circumstances would not in law constitute an offense, an erroneous though
not unreasonable belief
that the law is otherwise does not render justifiable the use of force to make an arrest
or to prevent an
escape from custody. A peace officer who is effecting an arrest pursuant to a warrant
is justified in using
the physical force prescribed in subsections (1) and (2) of this section unless the
warrant is invalid and is
known by the officer to be invalid.
5. Except as provided in subsection (6) of this section, a person who has been
directed by a peace officer to
assist him to effect an arrest or to prevent an escape from custody is justified in
using reasonable and
appropriate physical force when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that
force to be necessary to
carry out the peace officer’s direction, unless he knows that the arrest or perspective
arrest is not
authorized.
6. A person who has been directed to assist a peace officer under circumstances
specified in subsection (5)
of this section may use deadly physical force to effect an arrest or to prevent an
escape only when:
(a.) He reasonably believes that force to be necessary to defend himself
or a third person from
what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly
physical force; or
(b.) He is directed or authorized by the peace officer to use deadly
physical force and does not
know, if that happens to be the case, that the peace officer himself is not
authorized to use deadly
physical force under the circumstances.
7. A private person acting on his own account is justified in using reasonable and
appropriate physical
force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it
necessary to effect an
arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person who has
committed an offense in his
presence; but he is justified in using deadly physical force for the purpose only when
he reasonably
believes it necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably
believes to be the use or
imminent use of deadly physical force.
8. A guard or peace officer employed in a detention facility is justified:
(a.) In using deadly physical force when he reasonably believes it
necessary to prevent the escape
of a prisoner convicted of, charged with, or held for a felony, or
confined under the
maximum-security rules of any detention facility as such facility is
defined in subsection (9)
of this section.
(b.) In using reasonable and appropriate physical force, but not deadly
physical force, in all other
circumstances when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it
necessary to prevent what
he reasonably believes to be the escape of a prisoner from a detention
facility.
If this law has been amended, please post link.
“You can’t even shoot people that you know for a fact are going to steal from you and in most states, TX excepted, you can’t even shoot people that you catch in the act of stealing from you.”
Colorado has the “Make My Day law”. It says very simply, anyone caught in your home that you think is committing or going to commit a crime may be killed. Period. We also do not have those liberal “You must run for your Life” laws, like liberal States do. Anyone meaning you harm can be met with whatever force necessary to prevent that harm and a person does not have a duty to “retreat”, meaning run away.
Problem is that we have two discussions going on here and some are getting the two mixed in with each other and treating them as the same under the law.
A person in your driveway is not invading your home.
A person stealing your car, lawn mower, etc., is not invading your home.
There have been numerous posts to the effect that you can shoot a person to protect your property. Not so except in a very few states.
The castle law and the stand your ground law has absolutely nothing to do with the protection of your property, other than perhaps arson of an occupied dwelling.
In short, threatening your life, invading your home and protecting your personal property are three totally different subjects with an entire subset of laws dealing with each and each state treats each and all three differently.
Treating all three the same will get you jail time in most states.
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.