Sorry, but if an intruder is in my home at 3:30 a.m., I have no way of knowing his intent and am under no obligation to give him a chance to carry it out. [Read]
Looks like another case of opening his yap because he thinks if only he can explain his side of things, the authorities will understand...
When I think of how easy it is NOT to get drunk and break into someone else's home...
ReplyDeleteI've done it all my life. No effort at all.
If the resident had not been armed and the intruder had escaped, the police don't even come out to take a report anymore in many places. Budget cuts, you know. But the War on Privacy, they have all the money they want for THAT. Way to "protect and serve."
If it's in your home at 3:30 a.m., you own it. By definition.
Yes, and yet... unless he was running and shooting at me over his shoulder as he went, I could not morally or legally fire. I could not shoot anyone in the back as he ran away.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of self defense is to stop the attack. If the attacker dies, that's his responsibility. If I shoot him as he runs away, it becomes mine.
And as the intruder runs from you,
ReplyDeletehe suddenly turns towards you,
and fires at you......
How many msecs for you to discern the movement, process it as a "renewed" or escalated threat, and to respond appropriately? By that time you have already been shot, and will die within seconds if not dead already if he has sufficient skill with a firearm.
Oh, instead of the intruder's alcohol intoxication, substitute cocaine, amphetamine, PCP, inhalants or the narcotic of your choosing. Does that change the sympathy level?
By definition, his uninvited and unauthorized presence in your home is the attack. You do not know what his intent is. You do not know what weapons he has, or his skill level with those weapons. You do not know his age, his family status, or whether his mother or dog loves him. If he is shot in a doorway or in a window opening before he has a chance to turn and flee, is it morally better because you have been more efficient in launching your counter-attack?
Gotta agree with MamaLiberty on this. Once the intruder is outside running away, then shooting stops being self-defense and becomes vengeance. Assuming there wasn't any judicial hanky-panky going on, and the article is true as written, then he's guilty, unfortunately.
ReplyDeleteSadly, I have to agree with Mama Liberty and Crotalus. Unless you can get Mas Ayoob for your defense (he's testified before about how someone can turn more quickly than you can stop a shot), you are pretty much screwed in that scenario.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's right, but that's the law.
I find myself in disagreement with Mama Liberty and Crotalus.
ReplyDeleteYes they are correct in the way the law is written. However, the law, in this case, is wrong.
Under the current laws an intruder or attacker just has to get lucky once. Their intended victims can not screw up even once.
That goblin who runs away has the freedom to try again at any time of his choosing in the future. How is that either just or even sensible?
A threat is a threat until it is neutralized. If someone has broken into my house in the middle of the night for nefarious purpose then they have chosen that action and accepted the potential consequences. Even if they flee when they discover that their intended victim is able to fight back effectively they are still a clear threat.
What if he isn't running away, but merely seeking cover? Or going to retrieve the weapon he left lying on your kitchen counter, just down the hallway?
ReplyDeleteThe homeowner's first mistake was in not shooting the intruder when her first saw him. His second mistake was making a statement to the cops before his attorney was there.
Not in Florida. As has been previously stated, I have no knowledge of just how far Mr. Crook will run before turning to let go a cap or two. Or three. If the scene is otherwise clear, he is a dead man.
ReplyDeleteAnd the "authorities" agree. Castle Doctrine makes no reference to point of impact. Neither does my experience in fleeing enemies. Otherwise, I'd never have lived long enough to become an old hardass.
Hmmm...
ReplyDeleteHadn't thought about the fleeing thug turning around to fire, Fits. That does put a whole new perspective on things