WHAT?!

[EHL]

Reading comprehension will improve your LSAT score. I am a criminal defense attorney, not a personal injury attorney.

Nice Duke, thanks for the heads up. Splitting hairs as usual. So instead of helping these gangsters get rich, you're helping them get off the hook. Wow, you are a model citizen.

 

[General Geoff]

The point stands that shooting said drunken man who is breaking into your home would be justified whether or not you waited for him to open the door, and in those areas where for whatever reason it would NOT be legally justified, waiting for him to enter the home would not change that.

So in essence, your "enjoy prison" remark would apply to your preferred actions as well.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

LWGN: "The shooting incident we are discussing took place in Colorado. When debating whether this particular shooting was justified, Colorado law would be what we should consider. When deciding how I would respond in a similar situation, the laws of Florida, my state, and incidentally, also Sato Ord's (who you suggest would land in prison for acting in similar fashion), apply. Florida's law would consider this a legally justified shoot, and would protect the homeowner from civil liability as well."

I never said he wasn't justified in CO, at least from a criminal defesne perspective. Geoff stated that "in nearly every state" the shooting would be justified. I brought MA and ME in as counterexamples with which I am very familiar. Many others exist.

 

[Mello]

I find it outrageous that the Mercedes person had to make so many unreasonable assumptions to get to support her conclusion that a jury should be involved.

I think she made at least 6 assumptions about the actions of both the shooter and shootee.

She recited several facts about the shooting that she concluded the guy breaking in did not intend harm to those in the house.
One was that a person does not intend harm because he parks a big white truck in front of the house.
Two, No harm was intended because it was not the middle of the night.
Three, No harm was intended because the guy was pounding on doors for four minutes.

Not one of those facts supports her conclusion.

This is an example of a shooter who lacked confidence in his ability to deal with a lethal threat situation. The shooter was overloaded with fear, dread and anxiety. If he were more experienced and/or better trained he may have felt confident enough to hold fire until the threat was closer to him.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Geoff: "The point stands that shooting said drunken man who is breaking into your home would be justified whether or not you waited for him to open the door, and in those areas where for whatever reason it would NOT be legally justified, waiting for him to enter the home would not change that. So in essence, your "enjoy prison" remark would apply to your preferred actions as well."

Wrong again, counsellor. Waiting for him to enter and approach you in a threatening manner changes a potential threat into a real threat, and is precisely that point at which self-defense becomes a defense, here.

 

[LWGN]

Duke -

You told Sato Ord that he should "enjoy prison". Why? In the jurisdiction where he lives, this would be a perfectly justifiable shoot.

 

[General Geoff]

Once again, duty to retreat doesn't apply when you and those you are protecting cannot reasonably or effectively retreat.

Wrong again, counsellor. Waiting for him to enter and approach you in a threatening manner changes a potential threat into a real threat, and is precisely that point at which self-defense becomes a defense, here.

Wow, just.. wow.

You think a man trying to unlock your door through a window he just broke is a potential threat, but a man who just opened your door is a real threat? You should be disbarred.

 

[Gun Slinger]

Interesting story.

When I was a brand new Police Officer one of my first calls for service was for a burglary in progress.

Seems that some drunk (who also happened to be a very intoxicated college student) was beating on the front and back doors of a residence (that was not his) that was two streets over from his own residence in an attempt to enter it at 6:00 a.m. on a Sunday morning.

About 3 minutes before I arrived, the drunk finally managed to kick the front door in and upon entry was met by the baseball bat wielding homeowner (a young muscular guy in his late 20s) who beat him soundly with said bat leaving the drunk unable to walk (a broken leg and collar bone will do that y'know) let alone stand.

Engaging in irresponsible behavior has certain unavoidable risks. Being drunk and stupid is an especially bad combination of two irresponsible behaviors and I have no pity for those who get what they deserve when so engaged.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Geoff: "Once again, duty to retreat doesn't apply when you and those you are protecting cannot reasonably or effectively retreat."

And in many if not most states, the CO homeowner would be held to have had ample opportunity to retreat. Plenty of precedent.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Geoff: "You think a man trying to unlock your door through a window he just broke is a potential threat, but a man who just opened your door is a real threat? You should be disbarred."

And where did you get YOUR law license, counsellor?

 

[General Geoff]

And in many if not most states, the CO homeowner would be held to have had ample opportunity to retreat. Plenty of precedent.

How does waiting for the guy to open your door change that?

And where did you get YOUR law license, counsellor?

I am not, nor will I ever be an attorney.

 

[Ohm]

3pairs: "So in Mass you have run out into the yard or the street before you use deadly force?"

Duke of Doubt
Yes. You have a duty to retreat from your own home, even from arson, in Massachusetts. That's one of the biggest reasons I don't live there. But many states have similar situations.

from here:

http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/425/425mass89.html
page 98
we get :

"We have not spoken to whether a person in the defendant's position (a trespasser) is entitled to a manslaughter charge in a trial for the killing of an occupant of a dwelling. An occupant of a dwelling has no duty to retreat from an unlawful intruder. G. L. c. 278, s. 8A. However, at common law the degree of force an occupant of a dwelling is entitled to use against an intruder varies with the circumstances of the trespass. See generally 1 W.R. LaFave & A.W. Scott, Jr., Substantive Criminal Law s. 5.9 (b), at 669-671 (1986 & Supp. 1997). If any view of the evidence supports the inference that Hartnett used excessive force in repelling the defendant, a charge on manslaughter would be appropriate. Contrast Walden, supra at 729. See 2 C. Torcia, Wharton's Criminal Law s. 159, at 359 (15th ed. 1994). See also McCoy v. State, 8 Ark. 451, 455 (1848)

Bolding is mine.

Would D of D care to provide a link to case law which contradicts?

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Geoff: "How does waiting for the guy to open your door change that? "

Because, in mine and in many other states, a hand waving through a window is not sufficient enough a threat to justify shooting it, while an actual intruder in your home, advancing on you, is.

 

[rhoggman]

What is the reasoning behind perserving the life of an intruder?

What weapon can you use, and be perfectly sure that during the defense of your life the offender will not die?

How does one decide that using more than his/her bare hands is the only "fair" method of defense?

How does one correctly discern the age of an assailant during an attack/ crime?

At what point can someone else (non-witness) decide that a life is or is not in danger?

How can anyone reasonably say that you should defend yourself with less of a chance of succeeding than more than a chance? When it comes to where is my attacker this is very important. I want Rules of Engadgment, otherwise I will think my government does not have my interests at heart.

 

[Ohm]

Still waiting for that case law link, Duke of Doubt

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Ohm, what that means is that when the intruder enters, you need not leave. It does NOT mean you can shoot him. Other caselaw covers that, and while I enjoy chatting on the internet during down time, I don't do legal research for free. Besides, I'm not licensed in Massachusetts.

From YOUR case: "However, at common law the degree of force an occupant of a dwelling is entitled to use against an intruder varies with the circumstances of the trespass ..."

 

[General Geoff]

Because, in mine and in many other states, a hand waving through a window is not sufficient enough a threat to justify shooting it, while an actual intruder in your home, advancing on you, is.

So the duty to retreat evaporates if it's a "real" threat? Since when? And also, I still find it hard to believe that any jury would consider a man who broke a window and was actively trying to unlock the door anything but a real threat.

 

[230RN]

"Might it even be reasonable to speculate the "drunkard" wasn't even drunk -- it was just an act?"

This is one of the problems... with home invasions even being perpetrated by fake cops, how can anyone know in advance whether the intruder is just a plain old sot, or a stone cold sober killer hoping to get in by acting drunk?

I'd rather reach for my .45 than my crystal ball.

 

[Ohm]

Ohm, what that means is that when the intruder enters, you need not leave. It does NOT mean you can shoot him. Other caselaw covers that, and while I enjoy chatting on the internet during down time, I don't do legal research for free.

The case law I linked to completely contradicts you original claim.
It took me 15 seconds to find on google by searching for "duty to retreat mass"
You are now making a very weak excuse to avoid backing up your claim, because you have no idea what you are talking about.
Pathetic.

 

[General Geoff]

From YOUR case: "However, at common law the degree of force an occupant of a dwelling is entitled to use against an intruder varies with the circumstances of the trespass ..."

A reasonable individual would conclude that a man who continues to attempt to gain entry to an occupied dwelling after 4 minutes of protests and threats of bodily injury with a loaded firearm, intends to do said occupants grave bodily harm and does not fear death.

 

[LWGN]

I'd rather reach for my .45 than my crystal ball.

Yeah, me, too. The crystal ball is way too heavy for me to throw and aim effectively. And it is only single shot.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Geoff: "So the duty to retreat evaporates if it's a "real" threat? Since when?"

Nope. In MA, for example, you STILL have a duty to retreat before using deadly force. In ME, you have no duty to retreat from your own home at any point.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Ohm: "The case law I linked to completely contradicts you original claim.
It took me 15 seconds to find on google by searching for "duty to retreat mass"You are now making a very weak excuse to avoid backing up your claim, because you have no idea what you are talking about. Pathetic."

Nope. You aren't going to bait me into doing legal research for free. But whoever gave you your law license made a mistake.

 

[General Geoff]

The door being open or closed does not in any way change the perception of threat posed by the intruder. The end.

 

[Rush]

No comparison. What I'm saying is, the assailant HAS no chance against me. He's still trying to get into the dang room; by contrast I've already got him in my sights, the hammer cocked, and total control of the situation. It's NOT dangerous to let the potential threat become a real threat before you destroy it.

I have never read such a patently false statement in all my life.