The previous reference to the "Castle Doctrine" was correct, but there's more to it than that.
In most states that have adopted it, the "Castle Doctrine" specifically states that:
1) It is automatically assumed that someone who breaks into your house is doing so with the intent to cause grievous bodily harm and/or death to the occupants of the house,
2) The occupant of the house has no "duty to retreat" and may use whatever level of force necessary to defend himself, up to and including the use of deadly force,
3) And, most importantly, that the occupant of the house CANNOT BE CHARGED WITH AN OFFENSE if the intruder is injuried or killed.
Check the laws of your local state to see if this law is in effect where you live.
2007-01-12 01:36:39
·
answer #1
·
answered by Team Chief 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
It depends a great deal on the state you are in. Last year 17 states passed "Castle Doctrine" legislation and at least 2 states have introduced similar legislation so far this year.
The scene you describe would be considered self defense in most states. It is reasonable to assume that someone breaking into your home in the middle of the night intended you harm. While evidence can be faked, like placing a knife in their hand after they are down, modern forensics is getting pretty tough to fool. Rather than manslaughter I think justifiable homicide would be the ruling in most instances. But a lot depends on the state where you live and some other circumstances.
For instance some states still have a "duty to retreat" statute and that means that if your home and family are invaded by anyone you have a duty to retreat and go stay out on the street while they enjoy what ever your home has to offer. You have to prove that you or a family member was unable to escape by any means before you can use force to defend your self. There are not many states that have the duty to retreat clause as more and more ordinary people are demanding that they be allowed to defend themselves, their families and their homes.
New York for instance is a state that the duty to retreat statute.
2007-01-16 12:57:27
·
answer #2
·
answered by Christopher H 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
In my state, it's not even against the law. You can kill another in defense of your property. In this case, you were also defending your life, which is a complete defense. Lacking a witness is no big deal. Burglars don't bring witnesses. It'll be obvious he broke into your house. Worse case-the cops hold you while they investigate, secure the scene and gather evidence. If you live in a state where you cannot kill to protect property, this would be involuntary manslaughter, which has a very lower penalty. However, the fact that the burglar came after you gives you a complete defense.
2007-01-12 06:53:51
·
answer #3
·
answered by David M 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
In most countries you are allowed to use deadly force if you believe you or someone else is in danger of being killed. How you will convince a jury or judge would depend on the circumstances. If the prosecution could not show that the deceased burgular had a connection to you, or that you had invited them in you should have a good chance of not being convicted. The onus of proof rests with the Prosecutor, not you in this situation.
2007-01-12 06:55:14
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
The penal law in the State of New York, and I assume the rest of the States, allows you to use Deadly Physical Force towards a burgular who has entered your home at night. The reasoning behind it is that at night you cannot see if the perp has a weapon or not so you can assume that he/she does. During the day light you can use Deadly Physical force towards the perp if you are in fear of your life because the perp has a weapon....If the perp has no weapon then give them whatever they want. It is only property.
2007-01-12 08:35:26
·
answer #5
·
answered by Tom M 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
More than a dozen states have passed "Castle Doctrine" legislation, which protects citizens from criminal & civil prosecution if they use deadly force against an armed intruder in their homes or anywhere they have a legal right to be. The burden of proof rests with the prosecution. The measures are called "Castle Doctrine" in reference to the old English common law principle that "A man's home is his castle".
2007-01-12 08:21:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
That law is just so subjective its not even funny. more than likely it will be dismissed as self-defence if there is truely no foul play. however dont think that your character doesnt come into play. and also it depends on where you shoot the guy to. for instance if you shoot him in the back it can be considered manslaughter or worse murder. conversely if you shoot him in the front its, again, probably self-defence
2007-01-12 06:54:19
·
answer #7
·
answered by eskew_obfuscation 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I would empty the gun if you don't want to pay any medical bills ,and then It's just your side they get to hear.But make sure there are not more.If there are let a few bullets fall on the floor it scared you that much and empty it again,until they stop coming .be very slow in letting the cops in .make sure everything is in order,it is your home.
2007-01-16 15:10:10
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It depends. If you are a white male, you will most definitely be prosecuted regardless of your guilt or innocence. If you are a woman, the burglar was obviously a sexist, and you are a victim. If you are black or brown, the burglar was obviously wanting to commit a hate crime and you will be a hero.
This is the logic of liberalism.
2007-01-12 06:52:19
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
You can cite self defense in court but be sure to show that it is credible.
2007-01-12 07:08:23
·
answer #10
·
answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7
·
0⤊
0⤋