self defense? - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

davidmash · #16 09-13-2012, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by E150GT

I believe in Texas the area covered physically by your house like inside and the porch are a sure thing. Areas like the yard are more of a gray area...

I believe that is incorrect. There was a case a few years ago (I think it was discussed on here in fact) about a man who was on the line with 911 regrading a burglary next door. He told the 911 that he was going to shoot them or something along those lines. He went out side, told the thief's to stop, they did not and he shot at least one of them. The grand jury did not issue and indictment.

Emmerich · #17 09-14-2012, 12:27 AM

If the same guy charged a police officer and got shot, is there any doubt he would be justified? Then why not the homeowner?

aklim · #18 09-14-2012, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry123400

It sounds like the law was changed between the time the issue took place and the time of prosecution. He was probably tried under the new law and that wouild be fundemaentally wrong.

I'm not a legal scholar but can you do that?

I always thought that you can only try them under the existing law that the time the crime was committed? Can you be punished for something that you did that was legal at the time?

aklim · #19 09-14-2012, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emmerich

If the same guy charged a police officer and got shot, is there any doubt he would be justified? Then why not the homeowner?

If I charged a cop and got killed, many would say that the cop should have used his hands since I didn't have a knife.

jplinville · #20 09-14-2012, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry123400

It sounds like the law was changed between the time the issue took place and the time of prosecution. He was probably tried under the new law and that wouild be fundemaentally wrong.

From a common sense point of view who would attack someone holding a rifle or initiate an attack after a round was fired into the ground.Some people out there are just not too bright.

The law changed AFTER the shooting, adding the Stand Your Ground...It looks more like he was charged under the OLD law. I'm assuming that the detectives didn't charge him under the old, because the new was so close to coming into play, and that the prosecutor filed that charges under the old law. If this is the case, it's legal, since there's no grandfather's clause in the law.

From http://www.theoutdoorstrader.com/threads/34492-Castle-Doctrine-in-GA

Quote:

Deadly Force

There are 3 code sections that govern when lethal or deadly force may lawfully be used.

Defense from a forcible felony; A person is justified in using threats or force to the degree they reasonably believe it is necessary to stop another person's imminent use of unlawful force. A person is justified in using deadly force which may harm or kill only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony (unless it is regarding defense of habitation, which has it's own requirements below). You are not justified if you were the aggressor or you are/were/on-the-way-to committing a felony. (The state has pre-empted local cities and counties from further restricting this defense.)(16-3-21)

Defense of habitation; (here habitation means dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business) A person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:

1. A person is breaking\has broken into your home in a violent and tumultuous manner, and you think that the intruder is going to assault you or someone else living there.
2. A person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters the residence and you know it is an unlawful entry.
3. The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.

(16-3-23)

Defense of property other than habitation; Lethal force cannot be used to protect real property unless the person using such force reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.(16-3-24)

(Stand Your Ground/Shoot First/License To Murder - went into effect July 1st, 2006) If you have determined you need to use lethal force (as stated in one of the underlined "Defense" sections immediately above) you do not have to try to retreat before using that force. If your defense is valid, you are immune from criminal prosecution (unless it is illegal to carry that weapon where you used it) and civil liability actions.(16-3-23.1, 16-3-24.2, 51-11-9)

Hatterasguy · #21 09-15-2012, 05:13 PM

Its a shame this had to happen to what sounds like a pretty good person. I posted another similar incident awhile back where another man, this time black as well was screwed over by the legal system for shooting two white men when they decided they were going to beat him.

Its a shame in this country you have to go threw all this for simply defending yourself.

TheDon · #22 09-15-2012, 05:32 PM

I believe if someone trespasses on my property and is asked to leave and they do not leave and then are aggressive towards me I am allowed to protect myself in anyway possible. Be it using a gun or throwing poison frogs, I am to protect myself, family, property, and poison frog collection.

elchivito · #23 09-16-2012, 10:20 AM

Obama's gonna make poison frogs illegal. Just you wait...

Botnst · #24 09-16-2012, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchivito

Obama's gonna make poison frogs illegal. Just you wait...

He will bow and apologize to Frogdom first.

TheDon · #25 09-16-2012, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchivito

Obama's gonna make poison frogs illegal. Just you wait...

They will have to pry the terrarium from my cold dead hands first! I have the right to bear arms and frogs!

cullennewsom · #26 09-16-2012, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Is it the general opinion that if a citizen-victim is obeying the law and is threatened or attacked by another person causing the victim to fear for his life, that the citizen is justified in using deadly force?

At least me, and the Dalai Lama concur

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

I believe that is incorrect. There was a case a few years ago (I think it was discussed on here in fact) about a man who was on the line with 911 regrading a burglary next door. He told the 911 that he was going to shoot them or something along those lines. He went out side, told the thief's to stop, they did not and he shot at least one of them. The grand jury did not issue and indictment.

You're probably thinking of Joe Horn. Joe Horn shooting controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

t walgamuth · #27 09-17-2012, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDon

They will have to pry the terrarium from my cold dead hands first! I have the right to bear arms and frogs!

Txjake · #28 09-17-2012, 09:30 AM

He should be let go. That being said, NEVER fire a warning shot. In som estates they are against the law. If your life is in danger, the law wants you to remove the threat. In OK you can get in trouble for brandishing rather than firing.

aklim · #29 09-17-2012, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

He will bow and apologize to Frogdom first.

Yes but what about after that? When frogs are outlawed, only outlaws will have frogs.

HuskyMan · #30 09-17-2012, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Txjake

He should be let go. That being said, NEVER fire a warning shot. In som estates they are against the law. If your life is in danger, the law wants you to remove the threat. In OK you can get in trouble for brandishing rather than firing.

You are allowed to remove the threat by firing ONLY ONE SHOT .....any more than ONE SHOT might land you in the same situation this Oklahoma pharmacist found himself in.

You see, we have to be kinder and gentler to people who wish to do us harm......kid pulls a gun on the pharmacist but in self defense the pharmacist was supposed to have shot him ONCE ONLY. You best hit your target using only one shot while operating under the stress of staring at a robber's gun barrel because any subsequent shots fired by you might be deemed "an execution". In this case, the robber was subdued by one shot so the jury felt any more shots fired by the pharmacist were unjustified. I can't help but wonder if any of the jury members had ever been the victim of an armed robbery while at work.

Of course there is the "fight or flight" syndrome. Either run away from your property (business or home) or stand your ground and fight but don't fight too hard or use more than one shot to halt a threat or you may then be considered "an executioner". Robbers have rights.

The Oklahoma City pharmacist had set up a pharmacy in a poor underserved neighborhood so that the have nots could have easy and ready access to pharmacy services. As a result of trying to help the have nots, he is now living the maxim "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished".

Oklahoma City pharmacist found guilty of murder | NewsOK.com