How NOT To Defend Your Home! - Page 2


Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Handguns > Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection > How NOT To Defend Your Home!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-29-2011, 01:57 AM   #11
WDB
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
WDB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Nonya,WA
Posts: 3,991
Liked 2 Times on 2 Posts

Default

Anyone else notice the beware of dog sign on the front window? Where the hell was the dog barking like crazy at the threat at the door? I expect no dog and a guy to parinoid to peek out his large front window to see who's there before putting rounds through the door. It was a friend so at best he was knocking a bit loud in the middle of the night. Yes not a pleasant way to wake up but aquire a target before you shoot. Heck it could have been a neighbor beating on his door to let him know his house was on fire! This guy needs some jail time to get a grip, I expect there is far more to this story and expressed so far.



__________________

Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~ Thomas Jefferson

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benning Boy View Post
If you're really bored, I'm your huckleberry. If you really want a challenge, I'm the one.

If you're really smart, you'll just peddle your paint.
WDB is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 10:36 AM   #12
Jay
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Near Marion, IN
Posts: 724
Liked 15 Times on 9 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHLChris View Post
Even the castle doctrine or hold your ground policies still indicate that your safe location must be no longer safe, because a BG is INSIDE. Even if a crazed lunatic is beating on my door with a sledgehammer, the only thing I imagine I would be doing is making sure my firearm was ready to go when he actually breeched.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

SECTION 1. IC 35-41-3-2 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006]:
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; only and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, or curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, or curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the
force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is not justified in using deadly force; unless and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).

Different strokes for different states.... just sayin'


__________________

NRA Life Member
Freedom has a flavor the protected can never taste...
USMC 8652, 2531, RVN Jun '67, - May 69

Some of my toys

Jay is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2011, 09:11 AM   #13
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Gig Harbor,WA
Posts: 816
Liked 104 Times on 87 Posts
Likes Given: 219

Default

in washington state:

RCW 9A.16.110
Defending against violent crime — Reimbursement.

(1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.

(2) When a person charged with a crime listed in subsection (1) of this section is found not guilty by reason of self-defense, the state of Washington shall reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including loss of time, legal fees incurred, and other expenses involved in his or her defense. This reimbursement is not an independent cause of action. To award these reasonable costs the trier of fact must find that the defendant's claim of self-defense was sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. If the trier of fact makes a determination of self-defense, the judge shall determine the amount of the award.

(3) Notwithstanding a finding that a defendant's actions were justified by self-defense, if the trier of fact also determines that the defendant was engaged in criminal conduct substantially related to the events giving rise to the charges filed against the defendant the judge may deny or reduce the amount of the award. In determining the amount of the award, the judge shall also consider the seriousness of the initial criminal conduct.

Nothing in this section precludes the legislature from using the sundry claims process to grant an award where none was granted under this section or to grant a higher award than one granted under this section.

(4) Whenever the issue of self-defense under this section is decided by a judge, the judge shall consider the same questions as must be answered in the special verdict under subsection (4) [(5)] of this section.

(5) Whenever the issue of self-defense under this section has been submitted to a jury, and the jury has found the defendant not guilty, the court shall instruct the jury to return a special verdict in substantially the following form:

__________________
phildenton is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2011, 12:28 PM   #14
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
knfxda's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: FL
Posts: 692
Liked 19 Times on 14 Posts
Likes Given: 6

Default

In Michigan (where this took place):

PRESUMPTION REGARDING SELF-DEFENSE

Act 311 of 2006
AN ACT to create a rebuttable presumption regarding the use of self-defense or the defense of others.

History: 2006, Act 311, Eff. Oct. 1, 2006.

The People of the State of Michigan enact:
780.951 Individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force; presumption; definitions.

Sec. 1. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is a rebuttable presumption in a civil or criminal case that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under section 2 of the self-defense act has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another individual will occur if both of the following apply:

(a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing home invasion or has broken and entered a dwelling or business premises or committed home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business premises, or is unlawfully attempting to remove another individual from a dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle against his or her will.

(b) The individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force honestly and reasonably believes that the individual is engaging in conduct described in subdivision (a).

Now, the question is wheter it was honest and reasonable.

__________________

"Ideology deludes, inspires dishonesty, and breeds fanaticism. Facts, experience, and logic are much better at leading you to the truth."

"Despite the conviction and seeming depth of knowledge with which ideologues speak, they are intellectual weaklings--joiners--who defer to systems of belief and charismatic gurus for their ideas." -- Daniel J. Flynn

GOA

knfxda is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Oath to Defend michigan0626 Politics, Religion and Controversy 8 05-16-2010 05:04 PM
Outraged Daley vows to defend Chicago gun law tracker Politics, Religion and Controversy 16 07-30-2009 02:47 PM
Guy uses ak47 to defend home Gojubrian Politics, Religion and Controversy 4 05-11-2009 12:28 PM
The only Cannidate who will defend the second admindment right kevster Politics, Religion and Controversy 6 08-04-2008 07:05 PM
How should non-violent Felons be able to defend themselves? npbwbass Politics, Religion and Controversy 36 05-05-2008 02:21 AM