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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 ]

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