If I'm in my yard,and a group of angry young men are threating deadly bodily harm to my family? Or can I shoot to kill to protect a few of my neighbors things when they haven't threatened anyone?
2007-12-23 11:52:53 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
Why is Mr. Horn a free man,but Mr. White is going to prison?
2007-12-23 12:08:00 · update #1
Al depends on where you are
In the Netherlands a thief can sue a person if he falls in a unmarked hole on the property he was about to steal from.
In England a guy was charged with murder for sticking a sword in an nightly assailant in side his own house
In Mexico you can shoot any one ,who comes to close to the front door with his hands in his pockets
In Rural Africa kids get away with beating an alleged thief to death with sticks ,
In South Africa the police told us, that if you shot somebody ,it would prevent a lot of problems if you dragged the body partly inside the front door.
It would be normal in Most countries that one can shoot any one in your own house if they threaten you with violence.
When you go outside ,the law gets murky.
2007-12-23 14:26:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
as the note goes. if you are afraid for your life and limb and someone comes at you you can shoot to kill. but you have to have witnesses and its best if you do it in the home not on the outside. make sure they are dead. but then again its hard to say i have seen it go both ways and depends sometimes on the jury. i would think if i was being acosted or whatever i would shot to kill and i would be afraid of something bad. it would stop it but then you must get a lawyer right away and get your rights because the family of the one dead is always there trying to collect even if the persn was bad i have seen it time and again. when you can't protect yourself that is when the guns laws are to be put in check and used as the constitution says.
2007-12-23 22:31:38 · answer #2 · answered by Tsunami 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Generally, the “castle doctrine” provides that someone attacked in his home can use reasonable force, which can include deadly force, to protect his or another's life without any duty to retreat from the attacker. It is defined differently in different states. The name appears to have its origin in the English common law rules protecting a person's home and the phrase “one's home is one's castle. ”
We found 15 states that adopted a “castle doctrine” bill in the last two years. These states are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and South Dakota. A number of other states considered bills on this topic. In New Hampshire, the legislature passed a “castle doctrine” bill but the governor vetoed it.
These “castle doctrine” bills contain a number of different provisions and the states vary in which provisions they adopted. Some of these expanded the circumstances where force could be used in self-defense without a duty to retreat, some adopted provisions on criminal or civil immunity for legally using force in self-defense, and some contained all of these provisions.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0052.htm
************************
Why do we need such laws?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqOiejxdEWA
2007-12-23 21:13:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You could call the police and an hour later they would show up. You could shoot to wound, and get sued. Or you can protect your family. You will need a lawyer. And you may go to jail. But your family will still be alive. You have to make your own decision as to how important your family is to you.
2007-12-23 20:32:07 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Shoot in self defense or to defend others. Who cares what those anti-gun people say? They're not the ones being attacked by homicidal maniacs.
2007-12-23 20:06:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
From what I gather form listening to the incident and reading reports, Green approached the burglars to confront them about the theft. One, or both charged at Green. He defended himself. The end. (A good one so far if you ask me.)
I fully believe one has the right to defend his or her property and self to the fullest. If that means deadly force, so be it.
What gives a person the right to take property or freedom that do not belong to them? A bad child hood? Poor DNA? A brain malfunction?
I'll tell you what gives one the right to take action. Defending oneself from those that would do us harm.
Can you defend a burglar/robber/rapist/thief's behavior? What right does that person have to continue their behavior? They made a choice to challenge another.
2007-12-23 20:05:21 · answer #6 · answered by California Street Cop 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The use of deadly forces is justified in case of defending yourself, or a third party. If you are in fear for your life or the life of a third party, then you are justified to use deadly force. If you were to prevent a burglary from occurring, then deadly force is justfied.
2007-12-23 20:06:31 · answer #7 · answered by Police Officer 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Yup, self-defense. But reasonable self-defense, of course. You can shoot to disable.
2007-12-23 20:00:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
depends on the state you live in. first of all, if you shoot anybody, he better be IN YOUR HOUSE. and then you better make sure there is only YOUR WORD to be told. you don't want him saying, he just stumbled in to catch the grey hound.
or some other crap a lawyer can twist around, to make you the bad guy. also there should be evidence of him breaking in. meaning is, you better cover your @$$.
2007-12-23 20:10:38 · answer #9 · answered by gen patton 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
In Self-defense or to protect a life...yours or someone else's
2007-12-23 19:57:04 · answer #10 · answered by topcop1148 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋