Yeah tmoore is the real deal.
-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
Man on your property
- Thread starter zracin
- Start date
Anytime they are actually trying to kill you. A man walking in my yard, even if he looks menacing and does not respond to me, is not trying to kill me and I have no reason to believe that is his intent...yet.
- - - Updated - - -
He's a dead man.
made me laugh..
Yes, that is a bad shoot. IF that is all to the story. I can not find the original report.
Last edited:
So if the OP had shot the guy, do you believe it would have been justified?
What if the exact same thing had happened, but the OP was standing in his kitchen and the guy walked into his living room?
Last edited:
"Bear", there are millions of possible scenarios & "what-if's" & as you know no precise answer for every situation.
As "tmoore" posted it all comes down to the occasions that deadly force is justified, disparity of force, & the other criteria that has been mentioned on here that needs to be met to justify the use of deadly force.
As Marty Hayes puts it, (and I agree w/ him on this) in most states/ cities, whatever the case must meet the "reasonable man" doctrine.
I usually agree w/ you in a lot of your posts and its not that I totally disagree w/ you on some of the ones on this thread.
The one instance in particular that comes to mind is that if someone tells me that he's going to burn down my house & my family is in the house, IF I NEED to use deadly force to prevent that from happening most juries I BELIEVE in our area would agree.
The courts give us more latitude in using deadly force to protect our homes than common property like lawnmowers, four wheelers, jewelry, etc. Although the laws on use of D.F. still apply.
You are very right in that the gun should not be employed unless all other options have been exhausted & that decision has to be made quickly.
People call all the time or relate instances during class & ask, "Should I have shot this person?"
My usual answer is, "If you have to ask, more than likely, no.... you shouldn't have".
If your or a loved ones life is REALLY in jeopardy.... you wouldn't normally have to ask, you would act.
Last edited:
At what point in any of this were you in fear for your life? I've ran punks out of my yard while cleaning guns, (my yard was a cut through and neighborhood thugs used my yard as a cut through, and my neighbor had been robbed already) but I didn't brandish NY weapon, I already had the partially assembled firearm in my hands cleaning it BEFORE they walked through my yard. But, if you draw down cocked and loaded on someone for tresspassing and they are of no threat to you, its assault. If you go inside, come back out with a gun, its premeditated murder. While we do have a stand your ground law, if you retreat and come back, no judge will be on your side. Use your head before you use your gun, Before you draw down and begin applying pressure, you better be CERTAIN without a shadow of a doubt that the psychological, legal, and financial, and emotional stress you're going to endure are worth those actions. As PM said, you're shooting to stop a threat, not to kill. If you've ever been hunting, think back to your first deer. Its not in our human nature to be killers. Whether in self defense or other reasons, to end a man's life is not something you'll do with a clear conscience. If you don't want blood on your hands, wait until you have no other options but to shoot to stop a threat. As Monte said, if you're unsure, you obviously don't need to squeeze off.
I never said that my decision to let them burn the house down was based in my interpretation of the law. In fact, I reinforced the idea that it would not be necessary to retreat if a person enters your home and I believe deadly force would be justified if they tried to burn it down while they knew you were still in it. My choice is based on the idea that I do not trust the judicial system and it's vagaries. Just ask George Zimmerman about that. From all of the evidence that has been made public this was a good shoot, but Zimmerman's life has been ruined regardless of whether he is acquitted or not.
Now, back to my original questions. Based on the exact information presented by the OP, do you believe deadly force would have been justified? What if the same exact situation happened within the house rather than in the yard? I know, we were not there, but a DA, judge and jury would not have been there either and they are the ones that would determine the OP's fate.
The reasons that I am so focused on this are because I don't want to see an otherwise good and law abiding person go to jail because they did not understand the law and because it would not take many bad shoots by people misinterpreting the law for those laws to be radically changed to make it even more difficult for a person to legally defend themselves.
First off I don't know if Zimmerman was a "Good Shoot"
If it was he screwed his own case himself.
The law is not there to trip someone up. But people trying to cover their ass and add or delete specifics about their incident cause questions, that the prosecutors feel should be answered by a jury.
Listen to Protective Measures, he is usually correct.
If it was he screwed his own case himself.
The law is not there to trip someone up. But people trying to cover their ass and add or delete specifics about their incident cause questions, that the prosecutors feel should be answered by a jury.
Listen to Protective Measures, he is usually correct.
