The Rohrbaugh Forum
Miscellaneous => The Water Cooler -- General Discussions => Topic started by: flyandscuba on January 06, 2006, 10:04:13 AM
-
Favors the shooter:
http://www.weartv.com/news/Stories/January2006/0105/homedefender.shtml
-
Boy! That one looks kind of "iffy". A "He said, the other guy's dead" case. Shot once in the chest, three times in the back....:(
-
In his house confrontational maybe one in the chest, but three in the back is ??????????????????? at best!
-
If you want a strong self-defense law, then you have to have things like "he said, other guy's dead" -- think about it -- in your house, do you have video cameras, etc to prove anything, or in a similar situation would it be -- he was being threatening, and I fired, and then he turned to run toward A) exit B) crowbar C) shotgun or some other weapon D) wife, kiddies, etc so I kept firing, in his back, until he stopped being a threat. The dead guy still forced his way into the other guy's house at night, end of story. By forcing his way in, at a time when he knew the...we need a good word for someone who shots a bg in self-defense, he demonstrated, IMO, sufficient harmful intent to justify the use of deadly force -- I sure wouldn't be having a long debate if someone smashed into my house at night -- and I doubt many people who plan to live through someone breaking into their house in their sleep would.
-
Makes me think - ''hmmmm'' - right now.
-
This story is not doing the "Castle Doctrine" law any favors.. :(
By not knowing any further evidence,I too would be wondering about the "true" circumstances of this shooting.. ??? ::)
Brenden
-
Further thought Brenden has me actually wondering if this is not something conveniently ''on a plate'' for Brady et al. :(
There is much potential mileage to be pulled out of this if I am not mistaken.
-
It does sound a little shaky. Pistols should not be associated with arguments, in my opinion. The shooter must have strained to explain three shots in the back.
This is a bad start for the new law.
However, the victim can not come into someone's house uninvited and issuing threats. Big mistake.
The home must be your safe place where you can dwell in peace and security.
-
Further thought Brenden has me actually wondering if this is not something conveniently ''on a plate'' for Brady et al. :(
There is much potential mileage to be pulled out of this if I am not mistaken.
Chris,
I agree..Looks like ready made for the "See-we told you" gig ::) >:(
We in Michigan have a similiar law recently intro'd.Based upon the FL law..
This type of case is perfect for the anti's to show how "bad" thing's are!! ;)
Brenden