when I heard the top stairstep make it squeek, for a few seconds I frose up,waiting..waiting for another step. I opened my bedside drawer slowly..and silently I had my firearm in my hand I turned on its lazer and waited for the next step,which came surely. not to scare him, I got up slow then walked for my bedroom door. the lazer poked out first,then the intruder flew down the staircase i had a lock on his head and hestitated to pull the trigger, I instead walked swiftly making a quick check of each room as I went to the staircase. I again caught sights of the right shoulder then out the door he went. he had something in his hand. Was it within my rights to shoot him?
2007-04-18 05:52:14 · 9 answers · asked by BONES 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Not a short story. Just the way I tend to get all of the details out. He did not pose any threat,but was in my home and I will not shoot in the back.
2007-04-18 11:07:46 · update #1
No. Unless there is imminent threat to life, you cannot use deadly physical force. You said he had something in his hand? It could have been a cell phone. You must be sure before using DPF, or else it ends up being a bad shoot and you end up in jail.
2007-04-18 05:57:43 · answer #1 · answered by zebj25 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Depends on your state. In California the rule tends to be sue the minimum force required and never shoot someone while they are running.
If he was looking straight at you and had a gun you could have capped him off but after falling down the stairs and then running out I think you could have been in big trouble if you shot him in the back.
Also, did you write this as a short story or something for a book lol.
2007-04-18 13:13:59 · answer #2 · answered by libh8r13f 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It depends. In the wrong state or DC even. You could be held criminally responsable and could be sued by the intruder and made to pay damages. some states put the rights of the criminal above the rights of victims. thats the truth.
as a rule though bone up on the use of force rules in your locale, deadly force should only be used if you are in fear for your life. My rule Shoot !! first ask questions later.
2007-04-18 12:57:54 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't believe your story, but the question is valid.
My understanding is that if he is fleeing and not a bodily threat to you and your family, then you do NOT have the right to shoot. Depends on the state, but I think what I'm describing is universal.
Now, that's one gray area, as there are a lot of jurors who would hesitate to judge you in that case, and I do think that prosecutors would think twice about what charges to bring.
In the end, if you were tried, it would depend on your own state and your own motives. Character would come into play in the verdict, I'm certain.
Might make a good screenplay.
2007-04-18 12:59:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes! Your home is your sanctuary and you have a right to defend yourself against intruders who threaten yourself, your family, your animals, your property.
It's like finding a snake in my bed, I'll kill it and then find out if it is poisonous or not.
2007-04-18 13:01:11 · answer #5 · answered by Heidi 4 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Depends on the state you are residing in.
2007-04-18 12:55:41 · answer #6 · answered by chuck_junior 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In California, you could have shot him on the sport. Your use of deadly force is justified fearing fro you life and he was inside your home! I would not have hesitated!
2007-04-18 12:56:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Don't quit your day job to become a fiction writer.
2007-04-18 12:57:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I would have.
But in MI. we can do that.
2007-04-18 13:00:28 · answer #9 · answered by bakerone 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋