Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Attempted burglary raises self-defense issue(VT)
rutlandherald.com ^ | 20 November, 2011 | Brent Curtis

Posted on 11/21/2011 10:46:05 AM PST by marktwain

When Patricia Billings fired a handgun at an intruder reportedly breaking through her bedroom window in Rutland Town last week, the legal ramifications were probably the furthest thing from her mind.

“No one thinks of self-defense law when they’re in a dangerous incident,” said Michele Martinez Campbell, an associate professor at Vermont Law School. “When you’re in harm’s way, you do what you have to do.”

In Billings’ case, police say the 49-year-old fired three rounds from a handgun at a man trying to enter her home on Tuesday. The intruder fled the property on Quarterline Road leaving behind no evidence that any of the bullets found the mark.

As police continue to search for the home invader, state police Lt. Charles Cacciatore said the Rutland County State’s Attorney’s office has indicated that no charges should be brought against Billings for her actions during the incident. Billings could not be reached for comment.

But Cacciatore said it is possible that police may be called on to investigate the attempted use of deadly force if the intruder — once found and arrested — files a complaint.

The idea that a homeowner like Billings — who bought the handgun she used after her home was burglarized in August — could be at fault in the incident may appear strange.

But provisions for self-defense claims in Vermont — and nationwide — require that certain elements exist to be justifiable uses of deadly force.

Perhaps the most important element that must be proved in self-defense claims is that the person exercising deadly force had a “reasonable belief” that they were in jeopardy of being seriously harmed or killed, said Martinez Campbell and Assistant Attorney General John Treadwell.

But deciding what’s “reasonable” in such incidents can be difficult to pin down.

“It varies according to the situation,” Martinez Campbell said. “A person’s fear of bodily harm or death is a very subjective point of view. What’s “reasonable” has to be decided through an analysis of what a reasonable person would have thought.”

A tricky process to be sure, she said, and one that requires — to a certain extent — that police and prosecutors put themselves in the shoes of the person making a self-defense claim.

In Billings’ case, for example, any analysis of reasonable use of force would have to factor in the fear generated by the earlier burglary at her home four months ago.

Histories between individuals, including issues such as prior domestic assault, could also be factors during reviews of self-defense claims, she said.

But fear of serious harm alone isn’t enough to justify the use of lethal force, Cacciatore said.

In the same way that police officers must prove their own decisions to use deadly force, homeowners and anyone else in Vermont who kill to defend themselves must show that the threatening individual had the ability to do harm, the opportunity to carry out the threat and the threat of harm must be “imminent.”

“Just because someone is in your house doesn’t mean you’re in jeopardy,” Cacciatore said. “The question that is key in these things is ‘what is the immediacy of the threat?’”

Cacciatore, who said he has conducted self-defense discussions in classroom settings, says he has often asked students to measure the threat in inches. Is a man brandishing a knife 5 feet away from your position a threat? What about if the same person is 10 feet away? Or what if there is a locked door between you and your assailant?

“It comes down to when are you in immediate danger of harm to yourself and when does that immediacy no longer exist,” he said. “And if you can articulate how afraid you are in a given situation then you could be in jeopardy.”

But the analysis is further nuanced by the fact that Vermont, unlike some other states, does not have a so-called “duty to retreat” — a concept that requires a person to exercise nonlethal means of escaping a dangerous situation before resorting to force.

“Say someone came up to you in your car and they were presenting an immediate threat to your life,” Martinez Campbell said. “A duty to retreat would require you to drive away first if you’re able rather than use a firearm if one were available.”

In the context of a person’s home, the discussion becomes even more clouded under the language of a Vermont law that defines justifiable homicides in part as killings that take place “in the suppression of a person attempting to commit murder ... burglary or robbery with force or violence.”

In the context of an attempted burglary carried out through forced entry into a home — an act often involving the use of some tool — the statute would seem to apply to a broad number of incidents reported regularly in the state.

And the statute has been the cornerstone of more than one self-defense claim involving interrupted burglaries — including a well-known case in Rutland County involving the death of a 17-year-old high school junior in 1991.

In that case, 46-year-old Robert Bizon of Clarendon shot and killed James Ashcroft during a burglary in which Ashcroft and several other high school students were breaking into Bizon’s garage to steal a bottle of whiskey.

Bizon, whose case went to trial, was acquitted of a manslaughter charge brought against him even though evidence presented at the trial indicated that Ashcroft and the other intruders were running away when Bizon fired four shots from a .357 Magnum handgun.

During the trial, Bizon’s attorney, Peter Langrock, argued that his client believed his life was in danger when he saw the youths running out of his garage in the dead of the night — one of them with a tire iron in his hand.

But the same argument has failed homeowners in other cases, including Chittenden County resident Frederick A. Little, who was found guilty of second-degree murder for the 1993 shooting of a friend he mistook as an intruder when the man entered his bedroom and began crawling toward the bed in the middle of the night.

Little,who leapt out of bed and wrestled with the victim, Robbie Pasho, argued in an appeal to the state Supreme Court that he acted to interrupt a burglary when he chased Pasho — who he told police he didn’t recognize — outside and shot him in his car.

In their decision rejecting Little’s appeal, the high court wrote, “It is clear that it requires evidence that the victim acted ‘with force or violence.’ ... There was no evidence of force or violence on Pasho’s part until he was attacked by defendant.”

brent.curtis

@rutlandherald.com


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Vermont
KEYWORDS: banglist; burglar; defense; vt
I remember the Pasho case. The "friend" was naked. If I were on the jury, I would have been a little suspicious of someone chasing a naked "friend" out of the house, into a car, and then shooting them.

As an aside, it is comes the closest, of any case that I know of, where a homeowner was charged and convicted of shooting someone who was breaking into their home. American juries believe that a person's home is their castle, and they act accordingly.

1 posted on 11/21/2011 10:46:10 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“I feared for my life”.. Say it often, like every other sentence.


2 posted on 11/21/2011 10:51:55 AM PST by packrat35 (America is rapidly becoming a police state that East Germany could be proud of!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Come into my home uninvited in the dead of night if you will. The night won’t be the only thing dead.


3 posted on 11/21/2011 10:54:15 AM PST by animal172 (All aboard the Cain Train.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

In case of an armed robber or intruder, a reasonable person would assume that the weapon is intended to be used. That includes a crow bar or tire iron being used for breaking and entering, as far as I am concerned.


4 posted on 11/21/2011 10:57:16 AM PST by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“Just because someone is in your house doesn’t mean you’re in jeopardy,” Cacciatore said.”

You’re in my house uninvited in the middle of the night - I’m looking at being in jeopardy and I’m thinking deadly force.

What idiots some of these people are.


5 posted on 11/21/2011 11:01:30 AM PST by klb99 (I now understand why the South seceeded)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

The fact that they broke in while I was at home is clearly an intent to do violence. They believe that they will be able to subdue me, or kill me. They can only assume that I would resist. Therefor I am not going to see what weapons they brought till I drop them.

I may be old, but I am not stupid.


6 posted on 11/21/2011 11:04:18 AM PST by American in Israel (A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: animal172
I've been hunting the last couple of weekends and was cleaning the arsenal last night. (We did some fun target shooting before heading back to town)

Come into my home uninvited in the dead of night if you will. The night won’t be the only thing dead.

I considered how safe my family was while cleaning the shotguns and handguns. We have a dog, alarm, fence and capable shooters with loaded firearms in touch safes from the sleeping position. Though I have ended up on the front lawn on a couple of occasions when the dog went nuts in the middle of the night, I feel pretty safe too.

I also have 6 fire extinguishers in the house, one next to my bed. I hope to never have to use any of my protection devices for protection.

7 posted on 11/21/2011 11:07:24 AM PST by Tenacious 1 (Liberals vote like clowns walking thru a minefield, oblivious to the consequences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: klb99
You’re in my house uninvited in the middle of the night - I’m looking at being in jeopardy and I’m thinking deadly force.

Exactly! Only an attorney could ask how you could be sure you were in danger with a straight face.

I would love to ask that attorney where he lives and send someone over to his house in the middle of the to steal a gallon of milk from his fridge. "How did you know he wasn't breaking into your house to steal some milk?"

8 posted on 11/21/2011 11:10:24 AM PST by Tenacious 1 (Liberals vote like clowns walking thru a minefield, oblivious to the consequences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
require that certain elements exist to be justifiable uses of deadly force.

But in the Vermont case, the woman did not use deadly force. No one died. She fired three rounds from a firearm. It might as well have been firecrackers.
What if she was loaded with blanks? Would it be deadly force then?

9 posted on 11/21/2011 11:10:59 AM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (Attacking Wall Street because you're jobless is like burning down Whole Foods because you're hungry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: animal172
Come into my home uninvited in the dead of night if you will.

Note to Santa: Phone this guy before you get there.......

10 posted on 11/21/2011 11:12:20 AM PST by Hot Tabasco (ue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

More proof that we are in more danger because of lawyers than criminals breaking into our houses.

If, as these mental midgets claim, it is too difficult to determine if one is in danger from someone breaking into their house, then it is proof positive the greatest evil are the lawyers.

Once you enter my house, uninvited, in the middle of the night, I don’t care what your intent is, you will be laying in a pool of your own blood. And if some JBT tries to arrest me for such an action then From My Cold Dead hands come to mind.


11 posted on 11/21/2011 11:14:27 AM PST by Wurlitzer (Welcome to the new USSA (United Socialist States of Amerika))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Does one have to prove that they have not an ounce of common sense to be a law professor or DA in Vermont?


12 posted on 11/21/2011 11:16:06 AM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Pennsylvania Title 18, Chapter 5, Sections 2.1, 2.2

(2.1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2.2), an actor is presumed to have a reasonable belief that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat if both of the following conditions exist: (i) The person against whom the force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered and is present within, a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle; or the person against whom the force is used is or is attempting to unlawfully and forcefully remove another against that other's will from the dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle. (ii) The actor knows or has reason to believe that the unlawful and forceful entry or act is occurring or has occurred.

13 posted on 11/21/2011 11:18:30 AM PST by Stentor ("All cults of personality start out as high drama and end up as low comedy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“Reasonable” is arbitrary and capricious and has no place in American law. It is an invitation to abuse.


14 posted on 11/21/2011 11:29:22 AM PST by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“In Billings’ case, police say the 49-year-old fired three rounds from a handgun at a man trying to enter her home on Tuesday. The intruder fled the property on Quarterline Road leaving behind no evidence that any of the bullets found the mark. “

More range time needed.


15 posted on 11/21/2011 11:33:16 AM PST by Altariel (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: American in Israel

Well said.


16 posted on 11/21/2011 11:34:33 AM PST by Altariel (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER
“Reasonable” is arbitrary and capricious and has no place in American law. It is an invitation to abuse.

I disagree. It is the very basis of our law of self defense. A jury gets to decide if you, knowing what you knew at the time, in the situation that you were in, acted reasonably in believing that you were under a serious threat.

It is not perfect, but it works pretty well most of the time.

17 posted on 11/21/2011 11:34:41 AM PST by marktwain (In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: packrat35

The full statement is “I feared for my life and fired to stop the threat. That is all I will say until I have my lawyer present.”


18 posted on 11/21/2011 11:36:15 AM PST by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: packrat35

Oh, and then be sure to say nothing else, just to make it explicit.


19 posted on 11/21/2011 11:36:57 AM PST by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“Just because someone is in your house doesn’t mean you’re in jeopardy,” Cacciatore said. “The question that is key in these things is ‘what is the immediacy of the threat?’”

Texas=Castle Doctrine. Come on down!


20 posted on 11/21/2011 11:39:10 AM PST by jagusafr ("We hold these truths to be self-evident...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER
“Reasonable” is arbitrary and capricious and has no place in American law. It is an invitation to abuse.

"Reasonable" is open for subjective judgment, which is precisely the purpose of a jury. It would be nice if it could be more specific, but that would create unreasonable loopholes for murder, and any specificity you might write into the law, would be up to a DA and jury to apply validity to.

Did the man break into your home with the knife or was he invited in, shot, and a knife placed in his hand?

21 posted on 11/21/2011 11:43:53 AM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
A reasonable person, upon seeing a stranger breaking into their home, can reasonably expect that the person intends to rob rape and murder them - and should act accordingly.

Not many break in’s into occupied homes have happy endings for all concerned. Better to make sure it is a happy ending for society with one less piece of human detritus floating about.

22 posted on 11/21/2011 11:45:20 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
...the person exercising deadly force had a “reasonable belief” that they were in jeopardy of being seriously harmed or killed...

The burgler broke into the BEDROOM window. Not the living room or kitchen window, the BEDROOM window.

That should be enough right there.

-PJ

23 posted on 11/21/2011 11:45:57 AM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster

There is a video on the web with some lawyer making some GREAT points about not saying ANYTHING, EVER to a cop without a lawyer. Very interesting too. It was amazing how he could put up scenarios on how even the most innocuous statements could be used against you.

I imagine he could could tear even this most staightfoward sentence apart. Pretty sad really.


24 posted on 11/21/2011 11:46:38 AM PST by 21twelve ("We can go from boom to bust, from dreams to a bowl of dust....and another lost generation.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
“Just because someone is in your house doesn’t mean you’re in jeopardy,”

Yes, it does.

Anyone who forces their way into a house or is attempting to do so should be thought of as a clear and present threat. This includes any dwelling such as a trailer, tent, tar-paper shack or anywhere people live.

No question.

25 posted on 11/21/2011 11:47:30 AM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (*Philosophy lesson 117-22b: Anyone who demands to be respected is undeserving of it.*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
I remember some not very bright FReepers remarking upon a homeowners story that HE was the not very bright one.

His story was that he saw an armed man had broken into his house, he had his own firearm, he told the man to stop, the man ‘lunged’ at him, and he fired his weapon and killed him.

Some FReepers thought he should have just wasted the guy, and then told the nice law officers how smart he was by laying in wait and executing him without exposing himself to greater danger via warning the armed intruder.

WRONG ANSWER.

I like how he added how the armed intruder “lunged” at him. That was a perfect story. Why an armed man would need to ‘lunge’ at someone instead of firing a projectile is unknown - but it makes a perfect story - whereas the “smart” thing to do made a very very bad story to tell the officials.

26 posted on 11/21/2011 11:52:51 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve

Oh yeah, that is a great video, I’ve watched it a couple times, linked to it several times here. And I’d feel OK with what I posted there, given a self-defense shooting situation.

Dont Talk to Police
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc


27 posted on 11/21/2011 12:07:46 PM PST by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Which is why Texas just updated our Castle Law.
You can use deadly force just to defend your property.
Texas Castle Doctrine
According to the Castle Doctrine or Defense of Habitation Law of Texas, a person can reasonable protect him or herself against another person’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The person acting must also not have provoked the other person.

A degree of reasonable protection includes counteracting a person who:

unlawfully or forcefully enters or attempts to enter the victim’s place of residence, vehicle, or place of employment.
forcefully removes the victim from his or her place of residence, vehicle, or place of employment.
commissions or attempts to commission a kidnapping, homicide, rape, aggravated rape, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
In Texas, a person can justifiably and potentially use deadly force against another individual if: he or she believes deadly force was necessary at the moment, believes he protected him or herself against attempted deadly force, prevented an act of kidnapping, homicide, rape, aggravated rape, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

In addition, the occupants of the habitat must be in the habitat legally. If the occupants are considered to be fugitives or are using the Doctrine to provide assistance to fugitives, any of their actions are not justified by Texas law.

Texas law is known by many to be one of the toughest in the land. Texas is hard on criminals, but also adamant about allowing owners to retain their properties.


28 posted on 11/21/2011 12:11:11 PM PST by pwatson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster

Thanks for the link! And I would probably end up saying the same thing. Luckily where I live you can use deadly-force to stop a felony, so not quite the level that they have in Vermont.


29 posted on 11/21/2011 12:15:55 PM PST by 21twelve ("We can go from boom to bust, from dreams to a bowl of dust....and another lost generation.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
"Reasonable" is open for subjective judgment, which is precisely the purpose of a jury.

Great in theory. In reality, the victims/suspects are put through hell and lawyers get rich.

30 posted on 11/21/2011 12:30:30 PM PST by eccentric (a.k.a. baldwidow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
But fear of serious harm alone isn’t enough to justify the use of lethal force, Cacciatore said.
. . . homeowners and anyone else in Vermont who kill to defend themselves must show that the threatening individual had the ability to do harm, the opportunity to carry out the threat and the threat of harm must be “imminent.”
“Just because someone is in your house doesn’t mean you’re in jeopardy,” Cacciatore said.

What planet did this freaking idiot come from? He should be deported to California where he'd be right at home.

31 posted on 11/21/2011 12:55:39 PM PST by Oatka (This is the USA, assimilate or evaporate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1
"Just because someone is in your house doesn't mean you're in jeopardy," Cacciatore said.

That wasn't an attorney. It was state police Lt. Charles Cacciatore.

32 posted on 11/21/2011 12:58:30 PM PST by Ken H (Austerity is the irresistible force. Entitlements are the immovable object.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Massad Ayoob ~ “In the Gravest Extreme”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW_xaTf5oqI


33 posted on 11/21/2011 1:24:48 PM PST by Daffynition ( **Choose being kind over being right, and you'll be right every time.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pwatson

“You can use deadly force just to defend your property.”

Be very careful there my FRiend. Castle laws are written such that someone simply breaking in is considered a threat worthy of deadly force. It is not meant to allow people to use deadly force to protect their property.


34 posted on 11/21/2011 1:36:24 PM PST by MontaniSemperLiberi (Moutaineers are Always Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

This is outrageous! I can’t even put it into words.


35 posted on 11/21/2011 1:37:01 PM PST by snowstorm12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“Just because someone is in your house doesn’t mean you’re in jeopardy,” Cacciatore said.

What? this guy is nuts!


36 posted on 11/21/2011 1:38:15 PM PST by snowstorm12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
hen is it right to kill another human? That is just one of the questions that are studied at the Lethal Force Institute (LFI). To my knowledge, LFI is the only defensive shooting school that spends as much time addressing the judicious use of lethal force (the legally armed citizen’s responsibilities) as it does concentrating on combat shooting skills and tactics. When you carry a gun, you must subscribe to a higher standard of care in exercising your rights of self-defense. This is because with greater power, comes greater responsibility, and a person with a gun holds the power of life and death. I had the opportunity to attend LFI-I and LFI-II in Florida, taught by Master Trainer, Massad (“Mas”) Ayoob, for nine consecutive days in December, 2005, and this is my review.

Get yourself to a LFI course. The info is amazing. Search YouTube for Mas' vids. Well worth the effort.

37 posted on 11/21/2011 1:46:20 PM PST by Daffynition ( **Choose being kind over being right, and you'll be right every time.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hot Tabasco

Hadn’t thought about leaving a note for Santa. Thanks for the heads up. Do want to hurt the guy in the red suit.


38 posted on 11/21/2011 1:49:41 PM PST by animal172 (All aboard the Cain Train.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MontaniSemperLiberi

The Castle Doctrine in Texas was successfully stress tested in court a month after it was passed in 2007. It applies to your vehicle also.


39 posted on 11/21/2011 3:58:27 PM PST by Sarajevo (Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Sarajevo

The interesting permission that Texas law gives is in the case of “robbery” in addition to “aggravated robbery”. This goes against the USSC ruling in the case where a farmer set up a trap to kill anyone robbing his abandoned house, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katko_v._Briney. If you have some references on Texas’s ruling on “robbery”, again I’m interested.


40 posted on 11/21/2011 4:22:32 PM PST by MontaniSemperLiberi (Moutaineers are Always Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: MontaniSemperLiberi

actually in Texas we still have the sundown law you can legally shoot someone just for steeling property after sundown written back in the cattle rustling days. And the Texas Castle law does say now for defense of property. There was a case in Dallas where a guy killed someone robbing his garage and he got no-billed.


41 posted on 11/21/2011 5:06:47 PM PST by pwatson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: eccentric

So let’s hear your wording for a law that will always prevent those honestly defending themselves from ever going to court, while also protecting innocent people from being murdered by those falsely claiming self defense. Honestly, I want you to provide the example.


42 posted on 11/21/2011 5:10:20 PM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

I beg to differ.

“Reasonable” means that the jury can use their own judgement as to “If they were in that person’s shoes at that time, with that situation, would they have shot him?”

I’d rather put my trust in the jury in this case, rather than a bunch of pinhead lawyers, especially the DA and the judge.


43 posted on 11/21/2011 6:25:33 PM PST by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: pwatson

I just looked it up. Thanks for the clue about Dallas and the garage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy In my mind the guy was dumb. Police were coming and he decided to put himself in a bad situation, in the yard with the burglars. Yes, he had a right to go into his yard and a right to defend himself but it was a bad place to be. If he had sniped them from a distance just to protect his property, I think we’d be looking at another USSC case.


44 posted on 11/21/2011 7:22:42 PM PST by MontaniSemperLiberi (Moutaineers are Always Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve; FreedomPoster; marktwain
There is a video on the web with some lawyer making some GREAT points about not saying ANYTHING, EVER to a cop without a lawyer. Very interesting too. It was amazing how he could put up scenarios on how even the most innocuous statements could be used against you.

Here you go - it is very good:

It's about 45 minutes of good info, well worth the time to watch. Enjoy!

45 posted on 11/21/2011 10:31:40 PM PST by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

On this post? lol Laws are not made in less than 10,000 words increments.


46 posted on 11/21/2011 11:26:47 PM PST by eccentric (a.k.a. baldwidow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: eccentric
On this post? lol Laws are not made in less than 10,000 words increments.

I'm not laughing. Please share with us how you are going to write a law that automatically determines innocence or guilt, but doesn't allow the guilty to walk (without a trial).

And criminal laws are rarely long. Shorter and clearer is best, with juries deciding the issue of applicability. Only regulatory laws run more than a few paragraphs.

The 10 Commandments and the Bill of Rights are both prime examples of concise brevity.

Here is the Pennsylvania self-defense law in its entirety. It is accompanied by background statements and a list of definitions, but here is the law:
The General Assembly finds that:
(1) It is proper for law-abiding people to protect themselves, their families and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others.
(2) The Castle Doctrine is a common law doctrine of ancient origins which declares that a home is a person's castle.
(3) Section 21 of Article I of the Constitution of Pennsylvania guarantees that the "right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
(4) Persons residing in or visiting this Commonwealth have a right to expect to remain unmolested within their homes or vehicles.
(5) No person should be required to surrender his or her personal safety to a criminal, nor should a person be required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack outside the person's home or vehicle.

Short and sweet, but a DA and possibly then a jury must still decide whether a homicide was self-defense. It is impossible to write laws that do not require human judgment to enforce.

47 posted on 11/22/2011 5:49:34 AM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: MontaniSemperLiberi

I agree very dumb idea.


48 posted on 11/22/2011 10:23:14 AM PST by pwatson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: pwatson; MontaniSemperLiberi

I have to disagree. MSL, as you stated upthread, he had the right to go into his yard, and he had the right to defend his property. In this case, he also set an example to a demographic that requires instantaneous punishment for transgressions, or it just doesn’t sink in to their heads. I feel it was a good move, however callous others may see that.


49 posted on 11/22/2011 6:57:03 PM PST by Sarajevo (Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson