you loot, I shoot

[clapdoc]

We live in the country in Ms. Our sheriff is a personal friend of mine and would do anything he could to help me in a time of need. The sheriff also states " it will take 45 minutes for a deputy to get to your house, do what you think is right."

We had a drunk guy pull into our long circle driveway and pull within 6 ft of our house, the only reason he stopped is because I had a pump 12 guage stuck in his window for the last 15 feet he drove. I hoped that I WOULD NOT HAVE TO SHOOT, BUT I was prepared to do so to protect my property and end the potential threat to my wife and children.

My wife called 911 while the event was occuring and our instructions were, keep the guy in the car and if he tried to get our, shoot him.
It also took 45 minutes before the first deputy got here.

All places in this country are not urban and in the rural areas we still must react to a situation before the law arrives.


clapdoc sends.

[HOLLiS]

Doc, my responce time is better here, about 30 Mins. A friend kids called me and 911. Strange men where checking out their home.

I drove there, 10 minute drive from my house. Blocked their drive with my truck and secured the A/O. It took almost 40 mins after the 911 call for a Deputy to arrive.

One has to beable to what has to done to protect without fear of being victimized by the courts.

[clapdoc]

Hollis,

You are absolutely correct.



clapdoc sends.

Originally Posted by CoLawman

To be willing to kill someone for a piece of property is a strong indication of this individuals "right from wrong" wiring.

I find this an interesting comment, and far more indicative of your ideas of what is right than the subjects.

Thomas Jefferson came very, very close to writing "Life, Liberty and Property" in the Declaration of Independence. One of the few pretty much universal beliefs between the founding fathers, from Madison to Franklin, Jefferson to Washington; was the belief that property was worth killing or dying for.

What does that say about their "right from wrong" wiring?

[CoLawman]

Originally Posted by Greenhat

I find this an interesting comment, and far more indicative of your ideas of what is right than the subjects.

Thomas Jefferson came very, very close to writing "Life, Liberty and Property" in the Declaration of Independence. One of the few pretty much universal beliefs between the founding fathers, from Madison to Franklin, Jefferson to Washington; was the belief that property was worth killing or dying for.

What does that say about their "right from wrong" wiring?

Regarding the wording of the Declaration of Independence, I believe your interpretation of "their" usage of the word "property" is at odds with the scholars. The Declaration was written for the intended audience of an oppressive government. The implied threat to "their" property was the King not some thief.

Our founding fathers were wrong on several issues, which eventually led to amendments to the constitution. A few glaring examples of them being wrong;

Not until 1865 was slavery abolished.
Not until 1870 was "Race no bar to vote" amendment passed.
Not until 1920 were women given the right to vote.

I might add that during the era of Jefferson et al a person was not allowed to vote unless they were a property owner.

In no way am I denigrating the greatness of our founding fathers. They were not immune to influences of their time and place. While writing such phrases as "unalienable rights" they failed to consider how ludicrous and hypocritical those words were ,considering the elephant in the room serving them refreshments.

We no longer hang horse thieves! I believe that is a good thing. We no longer lynch people, again a good thing. Since around 1978 or 1979 we no longer give police the authority to shoot a "fleeing felon". Once again a good thing.

I believe our grandchildren and great grandchildren will look back at some of our archaic laws and wonder how we could have been so primitive. Abortion comes to mind.

You are correct in stating I gave my opinion as to what is right. That was the purpose of my responding to this topic. I have no problem with an individual arming himself and going to his neighbors aid. My problem lies with the taking of two lives for a television or some items? Seems pretty straight forward to me. If a cop is not allowed to shoot under the same circumstances, then a murder has occurred.

I would like to add, again, I am fully supportive of residents being allowed to use deadly force against an intruder. Totally different set of circumstances!

The same generation that those people who objected to theft by the King of England were also a generation that went and banded together to defend each others property from bands of Indians, from pirates, etc. As you pointed out, they hung horsethieves.

Obviously, they considered property of more value than you do. And the franchise related to that value(btw, women had the right to vote in some states when the Constitution was signed. Same for free blacks). Personally, I think universal sufferage is one of the great stupidities of modern America. If a person can't be bothered to provide some basic service to their nation (whether it is property ownership, service or taxpaying), why should they have a voice in the running of the nation?

Now a jury has a duty to decide the issue of right and wrong in regards to actions like that described. And I expect one will. They'll decide whether it was murder or not.

I'm just curious what qualifies you to judge someone else's ideas of what is right and wrong and decide that your opinion of what is right is the criteria for a statement about someone's mental state (which is how I read your comment on the subject's values and his "wiring")? To decide (on the basis of limited information) that a man committed murder?

It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. As requested by TR, with Pineland cites where applicable (caveat: I have not reviewed the actual NC cases and have redacted cites from other jurisdictions), the looooong answer:

§ 109. Duty to retreat

Although it has been held that retreat is not a condition precedent of the use of ordinary physical force in self-defense, it has also been held that the duty to retreat must be observed before force may be invoked.
The question whether one who is neither the aggressor nor a party to a mutual combat must retreat has divided the authorities. Generally, retreat is not a condition precedent of the use of ordinary physical force in self-defense, especially where immediate action appears to be necessary for self-protection. Even if one can safely retreat, he or she is not required to do so before using non-deadly force in self-defense. There is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be, even though it has been held that a person has a duty to retreat when threatened by another person who also dwells in the same place. There is no duty to retreat where the person assaulted is in his or her own home, or in a place of business, or on his or her premises.
However, according to some authorities, the duty to retreat must be observed if reasonably possible or before force may be invoked. In this connection, it is held that the principle of retreat is salutary if reasonably limited, and that the issue of retreat arises only if the accused resorted to deadly force. In other words, the accused must make all reasonable efforts to withdraw from the encounter before resorting to the use of deadly force. Hence, it is not the nature of the force defended against which raises the issue of retreat, but rather the nature of the force which the accused employed in his or her defense. If the accused does not resort to deadly force, one who is assailed may hold his or her ground whether the attack upon him or her is of deadly or some lesser character.
In accordance with such principles, the one assaulted may not meet force with force if he or she has a reasonable opportunity to withdraw and avoid the conflict, and it so appears to him or her acting as an ordinarily prudent person.The issue on the duty to retreat is not whether in retrospect it can be found that the accused could have retreated unharmed, but rather whether the accused knew the opportunity was there, and in such inquiry the total circumstances including the attendant excitement must be considered.

Use of deadly force

An innocent victim of assault need not retreat before using deadly force if the victim believes the use of such force is necessary for self-protection and the belief is based on reasonable grounds. N.C.—State v. Allen, 141 N.C. App. 610, 541 S.E.2d 490 (2000).

No duty to retreat

There is no duty to retreat from one's own home when acting in self-defense in the home regardless of whether the aggressor is a co-resident, although any use of force must be reasonable under the specific circumstances of each case. N.C.—State v. Everett, 592 S.E.2d 582 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004).

Porch part of home for purposes of the no retreat rule

Relative's residence

Relative's residence that defendant was staying at for a week or two while he looked for work was not his own "home," and thus, defendant had a duty to retreat from assault at the residence. N.C.—State v. Everett, 592 S.E.2d 582 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004).

In front of residence

A victim of an assault with a deadly weapon was under no duty to retreat but could exercise his right of self-defense and stand his ground and defend himself by use of all force and means apparently necessary where accused approached victim in front of the victim's residence carrying a loaded bow with arrow pointed at the victim.

Reason for criticism

Much of the criticism goes not to its inherent validity but rather to unwarranted applications of the rule; for example, it is correctly observed that one can hardly retreat from a rifle shot at close range, but if the weapon were a knife, a lead of a city block might well be enough.

Atrocious assault case

Question of retreat could arise in atrocious assault case only if accused intended to use deadly force.

Awareness of escape route

In the case of use of deadly force in self-defense, individuals who are attacked must attempt to retreat if they are consciously aware of an open, safe, and available avenue of escape.

Public place

In a public place one who chooses to stand his ground and fight where presumptively there is an avenue of peaceful retreat is in a poor posture to claim self-defense.

CJS ASSAULT § 109

and

§ 211. Defendant's premises

In general, a person is not obliged to retreat where, being without fault in bringing on the difficulty, the person is assaulted while in his or her dwelling house, office, or place of business, or on his or her premises.
Generally, a person need not retreat or seek to escape, even though he or she can do so without increasing his or her danger, but may lawfully resist even to the extent of taking life if necessary, where, being without fault in bringing on the difficulty, the person is assaulted while in his or her own dwelling house, in his or her place of business,or on his or her premises. Persons in their own homes assaulted or placed in apparent imminent danger of great personal injury, have the right to stand their ground and meet force with force, even to extent of taking a life if such persons actually believe, and circumstances and surrounding conditions are such that reasonably cautious and prudent person would believe, a danger of death or great personal injury to be imminent at the hands of the assailant.
The "castle doctrine" is derived from the principle that one's home is one's castle and is based on the theory that if a person is bound to become a fugitive from his or her own home, there would be no refuge for the person anywhere in the world. The castle doctrine is relevant only to acts of self-defense that take place in the dwelling, and it has no application to a conflict outside the home. One need not have a proprietary or leasehold interest or be a permanent resident of the place before the person can avail himself or herself of the doctrine. Rather, the person need only be a member of the household, however temporarily, with an intent to make that place his or her residence, in order to invoke the "castle doctrine.”
The rule that a person assailed in his or her own dwelling is not bound to retreat is the same whether the attack proceeds from some other occupant or from an intruder. The rule is applicable even if the assailant is lawfully present. Thus, in the case of an attack by a houseguest or a friend, there is no duty to retreat in the home. There is no duty to retreat from one's own home before resorting to lethal force in self-defense against cohabitant with equal right to be in home.
However, under some authorities the exception to the doctrine of retreat applicable to an owner, tenant, or other occupier of premises repelling an attack by a person engaged in the commission of a crime is not available to repel an attack by a co-tenant or roommate, and one must attempt to retreat in the face of a deadly attack by a co-occupant. In this connection, a man attacked in his or her own dwelling may stand his or her ground only if the attacker is not a member of the household, and where both participants are residents, both have a duty to retreat and cease the fight. There is a limited duty to retreat within the residence to the extent reasonably possible.

Extent of dwelling to which doctrine applicable.
The castle doctrine applies to all areas of a dwelling, be it a room within the building, a basement or attic, or an attached appurtenance such as a garage, porch, or deck. A person who is rightfully occupying a room or part of a house is not obliged to retreat when the person is attacked while in his or her room or rooms, although this may not be the case if the attacker has equal access to the room.

Motor vehicle.
A defendant's automobile cannot be equated with his or her home, and thus the defendant has a duty to retreat from a confrontation.

Common-law rule

At common law, a person who, through no fault of his or her own, is assaulted in his or her home may stand his or her ground, meet force with force, and if necessary, kill the assailant, without any duty to retreat.
N.C.—State v. Pearson, 288 N.C. 34, 215 S.E.2d 598 (1975).
N.C.—State v. Stevenson, 81 N.C. App. 409, 344 S.E.2d 334 (1986).

No safer place to which to retreat
N.C.—State v. Stevenson, 81 N.C. App. 409, 344 S.E.2d 334 (1986).

Defendant temporarily present in dwelling of another
N.C.—State v. McLaurin, 46 N.C. App. 746, 266 S.E.2d 406 (1980).

CJS HOMICIDE § 211

[Dad]

Not that it will affect the legality of Horn's actions, but I think in time there will some vey interesting facts arise which the public is not yet aware of.

[The Reaper]

So in NC, there is no duty to retreat in any part of one's home before employing deadly force, and in other locations only as a reasonable person would deem safe.

Given the inherent rules regarding the use of deadly force, turning one's back to escape a person who has already presented a lethal force threat to oneself or others would seem to be unreasonable, would it not? If the other person is armed with a firearm and has presented a threat, how do you safely retreat? Can we outrun a bullet? Other weapons, presented within their respective ranges to justify the use of deadly force, are likely unsafe to withdraw from as well, unless the threat disarms himself or withdraws.

I am not maintaining that what the homeowner did in the first post of this story did was prudent, or even legal. If, however, the thieves had been breaking into HIS home, and he had been INside, he could have shot them both as they entered without legal concerns.

I am still waiting for you to prove your statement:

Originally Posted by Remington Raidr

Generally, even in the defense of yourself or others, most states have a duty to retreat if you can.

Most would be defined as 26 states or more, and I am not buying that. We can pretty much write off any retreat requirement in the South, Midwest, or West (minus Kali, who knows whether you can defend yourself at all there). How many states require you to retreat from a deadly threat within your own home? I do not believe that very many require this level of restraint.

TR

[mdb23]

Originally Posted by Greenhat

The same generation that those people who objected to theft by the King of England were also a generation that went and banded together to defend each others property from bands of Indians,

I'm sure that the Indians had a quite different perspective on who that property belonged to, and who was defending what was rightfully theirs....

In all seriousness, I have a question for those who are advocating the use of lethal force in defense of property... especially third party property.....

What is the smallest (least valuable) item worth killing someone over? Someone breaking into a home or stealing a car are pretty cut and dried, but what about a 16 year old running off with the neghbor kid's skateboard? Shoot him? The guy stealing a six pack of beer from the convenience store.... shoot him? The college kids who do a "gas and go" at the gas station? Light them up?

Where is the line drawn?

I draw the line where I individually choose. I don't suggest that I should tell you where to draw the line. Theft is theft.

[sg1987]

Originally Posted by CoLawman

Since around 1978 or 1979 we no longer give police the authority to shoot a "fleeing felon". Once again a good thing.

I have often pondered this one. How many times do we hear of high speed pursuits that kill or seriously injured innocent bystanders? I would prefer the shotgun blast to the head of a fleeing perp, when it can be executed, than the death of a Mom in a minivan any day of the week. “You fly….you die” would be a great deterrent.

[monsterhunter]

Originally Posted by mdb23

I'm sure that the Indians had a quite different perspective on who that property belonged to, and who was defending what was rightfully theirs....

In all seriousness, I have a question for those who are advocating the use of lethal force in defense of property... especially third party property.....

What is the smallest (least valuable) item worth killing someone over? Someone breaking into a home or stealing a car are pretty cut and dried, but what about a 16 year old running off with the neghbor kid's skateboard? Shoot him? The guy stealing a six pack of beer from the convenience store.... shoot him? The college kids who do a "gas and go" at the gas station? Light them up?

Where is the line drawn?

I would say the line was much clearer sometime ago. The general rule then was you may fire on a fleeing felon. A 16-year-old running off with a skateboard is a misdemeanor and would not fall under this old law. The same for the beer run and the gas and go. A burglar is a felon, and is usually not some kid doing a crime of opportunity. The line seems pretty clear to me.

Today for the average LEO, deadly force is only for those who present a risk of death or serious injury to someone in imminent danger. If it was up to me, I would go back to the old way. But quite honestly, It's not up to me and in the great scheme of things, it doesn't matter what I think.

[HOLLiS]

Originally Posted by Greenhat

I draw the line where I individually choose. I don't suggest that I should tell you where to draw the line. Theft is theft.

I am in agreement here. First No One should mess with another person, period. If a person chooses to mess with another, they give that person the right to deal with the situation. Bullys would cease to exist. Abuse and the justification of abuse is just too common. No one has the right to abuse another person.

Obviously it is more complicated than I presented here.

[CoLawman]

It is important to point out the distinction between theft and robbery. The example you use is robbery. The taking by the use of force against a person. Repelling attacks against pirates or "indians" meant an armed attack.

Basing arguments in a debate on the merits of practices and customs long ago cast aside as barbaric, elitist and ignorant is futile in my humble opinion.

My opinion was nothing more than a perfunctory review of the limited facts and an assumption based on that review. It was certainly not intended to offend those with opposing opinions.

I draw the line where I individually choose. I don't suggest that I should tell you where to draw the line. Theft is theft.

You might draw the line where you chose, such as Mr Horn, and be subjected to the law of the land. I do not determine the line, the law determines that line. You are absolutely correct, theft is theft, and how we as a society deal with a thief has long ago been settled. Go against those laws and you suffer the consequences.