Posted on 06/15/2022 4:13:45 AM PDT by Jim Noble
What if he shot him in the ass? s/
“During a break, bailiffs worked to keep the two sides separated.”
————
They should have just set up a ring and sold tickets.
Was he turning from the shooter, which is an auto response, while trying to shoot the home owner?
Our county prosecutor in my class said point blank, if you are going to shoot someone make sure that they are DEAD. That way they can’t testify against you. In simple terms, Shoot to Kill !
What if the criminal was yelling, I will be right back to finish you off as he turned away? Wouldn't you want to shoot him if you had a shot at that time? Why wait until he comes back to kill you and perhaps you don't have a shot?
Well it sounds like they have castle doctrine there so back shooting probably OK.
“Shooting home invader in the back isn’t self-defense”
That’s debatable. It could be self-defense. Where is he running to? Has he stated his intentions? (”I’m going to kill you.”) Is he armed? Has he already attempted to murder you? Is he blocking your path to safety?
A person can be facing one direction and turn his torso and shoot behind him. Would the DA argue that you can’t defend yourself simply because of the robber’s shooting stance?
Also, what is the intent of the person shooting the home invader?
Self defense is not the only reason to shoot someone. Is he still a threat to others? For example, if he is running away from me but I reasonably suspect he is running toward my car where a family member is, he is still a threat.
He could still be a lethal threat just by getting into a car. Sometimes the police assume this.
Legally, everything depends on the state law. It needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. It is unreasonable to make a blanket judgment in every case where the home invader is shot in the back.
Even if it isn’t self-defense, it’s probably better for society to give the resident huge latitude and benefit of the doubt when shooting a home invader still on his or her property, and especially if the invader is still inside the home.
When someone invades your home, it creates chaos and confusion. Your adrenaline will be through the roof. It is very easy for accidents to happen. For example, you might run barefoot over broken glass to get away because you’re not thinking about that. It is not reasonable to expect someone in this situation to be able to calmly, cooly, and with meticulous reasoning, always make the best choice. You don’t exactly have the time to do a Ben Franklin pros and cons analysis before deciding.
Fleeing is not surrendering. The home invader still may be a lethal threat. He’s definitely proven himself to be a threat to society.
The DA probably wouldn’t want me on the jury. Just saying.
“At least once, Rivera-Perez said he wanted revenge, suggesting his response to the intruders was not motivated by a desire to protect himself or his family but an affirmative, aggressive stance…”
This is why it is usually a good idea to get an attorney before making statements.
A person wanting revenge does not prove he is not acting in self-defense or in the defense of the lives of others. However, it is giving the police and prosecutors a possible motive if they decide to charge you.
got what he deserved
Deserved has nothing to do with it. Deadly force is justified to prevent an imminent threat. It's all about what a reasonable person would judge that the perpetrator is about to do, not what he had done.
That the perp has engaged in a home invasion and an assault has relevance only in coloring perceptions of what he is likely to do.
Would a reasonable person judge that someone who has invaded a home and committed assault upon a person is likely to commit a homicide or inflict a grave injury?
The answer is clearly yes, so lethal force is justified.
But that's a judgement of what he is likely to do, not a response to what he's already done.
The core question is always: does he pose an imminent threat of death or serious injury?
It is never: what has he done?
Can’t get to your gun until they’ve finished beating on you. Sounds fair to me that you get to hit back.
Wrong Hillsborough. This was New Hampster, not Florida
As it should be. These scumbags threatened his family. Who is to say they won't be back or do a drive-by? That is a reasonable fear. Kill them now. Let God sort out his own.
In Florida, a civilian shooting at a fleeing suspect is a no no.
Got to hit the perp mid mass in /on your property,
5.56mm
Agree - good enough for the FedGov, good enough for the citizen.
Oops. Thanks for the clarification.
Good shoot...
Only bad thing is that he didn’t get all of them...
This “not in the back” nonsense makes me believe that in a few years from now, when thousands of chicoms come pouring out of the landing crafts, they’’ll simply cross the beaches backwards so those dainty Amelicans won’t shoot them...
How do we know he wasn't leaving the room to go get the kids and carve them up to make the guy talk?
We don't.
And given the behavior her been engaged in, prior to his being shot, I think quite likely he still posed an immediate threat, regardless of whether he had his back turned.
I'm not trying to argue that the shooting of him wasn't justified, I expect it was. I'm only complaining about some of the reasons that are being proffered on this board as reasons for his being shot.
You or I may think that he deserved to be shot, but deserved or not deserved are judicial questions, and have no relevance to self defense.
The only question at issue in self defense is "did he pose an immediate threat?"
If you're ever involved in an incident of self defense, do not talk about what he did or did not deserve. It'll get you in trouble.
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.