How NOT To Defend Your Home!

Discussion in 'Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection' started by ninjatoth, Jul 25, 2011.

  1. ninjatoth

    ninjatoth New Member

    1,733
    0
    0
    Saw this on my local news,very idiotic:

    - A case of mistaken identity landed a local man in the hospital with life-threatening injuries.

    Investigators tell TV5 that at around 1:45 a.m. Monday, a 36-year-old Saginaw Township man shot through his Bradford Drive door when he thought he was being robbed.

    Saginaw Township Police Lt. Martin Larsen said it turns out the person at the door was the homeowners friend, who was hit twice in the stomach. That 43-year-old man's identity has not been released.

    The homeowner was taken into police custody and has not been arraigned.

    It's not clear what charges, if any, will be brought against him.

    Residents in the area were alarmed at the shooting.

    "It's kinda scary to be happening around here, it's a real quiet neighborhood, not a whole lot goes on around here at all," said Tim LaBrake. "Occasionally there's a traffic stop on the street, but that's about it."

    Spooked homeowner shoots friend by mistake - WNEM TV 5 - Saginaw, Flint, Michigan News and Weather
     
  2. spittinfire

    spittinfire New Member Supporter

    9,663
    4
    0
    I'm sorry but anyone at my door at 0145 is not welcome until identified as a friendly. I don't want to hear about anyone being shot but I think their may be more to this story then we are hearing.
     

  3. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    19
    38
    my first response at a knock on the door at 145am is grab a gun and ask who the eff is out there with 911 on speed dial. blasting thru the front door isnt #1
     
  4. armsmaster270

    armsmaster270 New Member

    755
    0
    0
    I agree --Rule 1 identify your target
     
  5. phildenton

    phildenton New Member

    853
    0
    0
  6. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    Perhaps he thought the door was angry at him and was trying to rip itself loose of its hinges? He just needs to switch over to some of that frangible ammo to prevent over-penetration in the event of another door attack.
    ;)
     
  7. knfxda

    knfxda New Member

    690
    0
    0
  8. CHLChris

    CHLChris New Member

    2,523
    0
    0
    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.

    A single body part inside my home and I am sending the first volley.
     
  9. jam_o_matic

    jam_o_matic New Member

    1
    0
    0
    "I didn't have a weapon until a month ago," said Drake.

    [​IMG]


    I wonder if he's put a light bar on top of his pickup truck yet?
     
  10. WDB

    WDB New Member

    3,977
    3
    0
    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.
     
  11. Jay

    Jay New Member

    736
    0
    0
    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'
     
  12. phildenton

    phildenton New Member

    853
    0
    0
    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:
     
  13. knfxda

    knfxda New Member

    690
    0
    0
    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.