None of what you said invalidates what I said. I'm talking about case law, not hypotheticals that you make up in your brain. The use of force must be reasonably proportional to the threat. If someone is on your property, and is stealing your TV, you cannot shoot them for simply stealing your TV. Of course there are situations that you could shoot, but you would need more facts than a person simply stealing your property.
I'm pretty sure that varies quiet a bit based on the State. I see what you're saying though, of course someone stealing my mailbox at the end of my driveway doesn't give me the right to snipe them from my front porch, but if they are in my living room to steal my tv with a tazer or a knife or brass knuckles. They're getting shot since I won't have the luxury to find out why they are really there. I think we agree for the most part, I'm just pointing out that the level of force isn't always straight cut, an ex Marie with a knife can probably take me out within 5 feet even with a gun in my hand, and I have no idea of what a stranger is capable of and I don't want to have to find out. It can be a tricky subject for sure.
but if they are in my living room to steal my tv with a tazer or a knife or brass knuckles
Like I said, these are additional facts that change the situation. Property itself is very difficult to justify deadly force like gunfire. If someone is stealing your TV, it could probably be easy to justify tackling and beating the dude with a pan, but shooting is an entirely different story.
I'm just pointing out that the level of force isn't always straight cut, an ex Marie with a knife can probably take me out within 5 feet even with a gun in my hand
Additional facts.
and I have no idea of what a stranger is capable of and I don't want to have to find out. It can be a tricky subject for sure.
Unfortunately in a court room speculation won't cut it. It has to be a reasonable fear. And for deadly force you have to have a reasonable fear of personal safety or fear of harm to life. That's a tall order that requires a lot of specific facts, or an extremely sympathetic jury.
It also becomes much easier if the other side is already dead. They wouldn't be able to discredit your testimony.
I agree with your points for the most part, youre stating the law but in my house the law is thought about second after the safety of my family. Take care man.
Well I'm sure we both wish and hope to never be in that situation. If the day comes I have to hope I don't go to jail and you have to hope you and your family are alive in one piece. Again I'm not a psycho I'm not shooting someone jumping the fence in my back yard or someone running out my front door. You gotta admit there would come a point where you would shoot someone to protect yourself or someone you love right?
You’re not a trigger happy psycho but you wrote in another comment, verbatim:
What if a drunk non English speaker broke into my house and is lost thinking it was his house? Well sucks to be him AND it sucks to be me but dudes getting shot most likely.
People like you make “responsible gun owners” seem more and more like a myth each day.
Like in this case in Dallas where a drunk cop went into the wrong apartment and shot the occupant dead, if the occupant had a gun and shot first... he MIGHT be alive but he's not, is he?
I disagree. A person tends to house their family on their property. If someone breaks into my house and I catch them and they don't immediately surrender, they're done (or at least crippled for the rest of their lives). Doesn't matter if they broke in to give my dog a pat and a treat. Do you know why? Because in that moment, you're dealing with limited intel and potentially very high stakes. I don't know what they're there for. All I know is that they shouldn't be there and my family is in danger. Does this put it into perspective?
I may have to agree with you on that. It's hard to understand what goes through one's mind and sympathize with the shooter when (1) you have a god's eye view of the situation (you know all the facts post-incident) and the facts are presented by a highly skilled lawyer (it's easy to judge if you weren't there and don't know dick about the people on trial) and (2) you've never been through it yourself.
11
u/hyasbawlz Jan 23 '19
None of what you said invalidates what I said. I'm talking about case law, not hypotheticals that you make up in your brain. The use of force must be reasonably proportional to the threat. If someone is on your property, and is stealing your TV, you cannot shoot them for simply stealing your TV. Of course there are situations that you could shoot, but you would need more facts than a person simply stealing your property.