You are allowed to use deadly force within your home to protect yourself and others and your property from *imminent* danger, but your use of force will, (depending on your jurisdiction,) usually be subjected to a "reasonable person" standard. That is, the jury will be asked, "would a reasonable person in this situation have believed himself or herself to be in imminent danger?" If a burglar sees you and tries to flee, or tries to surrender on seeing your gun, you will have a hard time arguing that a reasonable person would have seen an imminent threat.
2007-12-01 08:01:14
·
answer #1
·
answered by Josh 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
There was a case I was reading about when I was studying welfare law, two guys went to a farm and were helping themselves to the petrol store/tank and the farmer shot one of them and went to jail. The decision was based upon the fact that a gun is undue force. However, if someone comes in my house i'd be legally within my rights to give them a good whack with a cricket bat or a lump of wood.
2007-12-01 08:04:11
·
answer #2
·
answered by heardcrombie 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
NO !!! IN MY international which would be JUSTICE !!! Oh, yet provided that that have been so. If no one is homestead different than the dogs, in Canada there could be fees laid because of the fact no one became into in possibility whilst the dogs attacked. The regulation is very '''humorous''' that way. the subject in my united states of america is that criminals have greater rights than the owner of a house does. we are predicted and recommended to easily enable the criminal walk away with our possessions and enable the Police handle it. And whilst it comes to a teenage criminal that would mean not being pointed out in the media and enable circulate back into the community below parental supervision. Which in itself is a humorous tale, because of the fact the place have been the mummy and dad whilst he broke into my homestead the 1st time. And if my dogs bit this little shyytte the dogs could probable be seized and positioned down. in the country it rather is a distinctive count number because of the fact in some States you may shoot or positioned your dogs onto a youngster merely for reducing for the period of your backyard.
2016-10-10 00:35:01
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, because unless they attack you in any kind of way you should not be able to "neutralize" that person its not fair at all but what you should do is call the police and leave it up to them because if you don' you could go to jail or get in trouble.
2007-12-04 04:35:40
·
answer #4
·
answered by Bianca b 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Of course. We all have the right to self-defense. However, you can still be held liable to some degree if you go over the top and shoot a fleeing suspect in the back or something.
2007-12-01 08:07:55
·
answer #5
·
answered by haywood jablome 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
This question is only academic, because the law and nature tells us that we can defend our lives and the lives of our family..with deadly force if need be.
2007-12-01 07:56:37
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
If you feel threatened, then you have every right to protect yourself, your loved ones and your property. I have a street sweeper all locked and loaded sitting in the corner waiting for just that eventuality!
2007-12-01 08:04:18
·
answer #7
·
answered by ? 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Hell yeah you should be able to. If someone breaks into my house they better be expecting to some cold steel pointed in their face. Most likely I'm not going to kill you but I'm going to maim you pretty bad and then you get to go to jail.
2007-12-01 07:57:31
·
answer #8
·
answered by Chad M 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Where I live, once they are in your house, you can use ANY force you think necessary to protect yourself.
2007-12-01 07:57:30
·
answer #9
·
answered by just me 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
Depends on the state you live in.
http://www.gunlaws.com/links/
2007-12-01 07:59:11
·
answer #10
·
answered by why not 3
·
2⤊
0⤋