Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/11/2004 9:34:33 AM EST
My sister and her husband were watching Sunday night football in their living room, and it was dark outside. They had the front door open, with just the screen door shut (mistake). Cat is lying on the floor in front of the doorway. All of a sudden, the cat freaks out, looking at the front door. The screen door begins to slowly open. In walks a (she estimates) 300+ lb. black guy wearing nothing but a shirt. Naked from the waist down. Actually, she says he was so big she couldn't tell if he was male or female.

After a few seconds of pure shock, her husband gets up and yells at him to get the hell out of the house. Guy just stands there. Finally, my sister, who works with disabled kids, realizes that he has what appeared to be a mental disorder, and tells him to sit down, which he does. They call 911 and get rescue/police on scene.

While they are figuring all this out, the dude's mom shows up. Turns out he is 28, lives with his mother about a block away. She has had trouble with him leaving the house in the past, so she had an alarm on the doorway that would tell her when he left. But he hasn't had an "episode" for the past 2 years, and she disabled the alarm. She is a nice lady, apologetic, gets him back home.

I would think that he would have met the barrel of any gun I could get my hands on quickly if that happened to me and my wife. Probably true in most houses around here. My sister and her husband have no guns, if the dude wanted to he probably could've torn them apart. I also think that the "perceived" threat that he gave them could have justified shooting him. Am I wrong?

Link Posted: 10/11/2004 9:37:07 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 9:37:13 AM EST
I would have pointed a gun at him, but since he responded to being told to sit down, I would not have pulled the trigger. Now if he stepped torwards me or mine........
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 9:37:39 AM EST
He would definately be confronted by one of my guns if that happened at my house. I dont know enough about legal issues if you were to shoot him without him actually coming at you.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 9:38:29 AM EST
if I were on a jury in such a case, I would vote to aquit.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 9:39:10 AM EST
Part of the responsibility of owning a firearm is the ability to make life or death decisions. You make the wrong one and you will hang for it or be buried for it. The man made no threatening gestures and was obviously mentally ill. To shoot him may have been justified later in court, but who wants to live with killing a retarded person? If he was going to hurt someone thats different alltogether.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 9:40:49 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2004 9:41:25 AM EST by blackrifle51]

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:
Part of the responsibility of owning a firearm is the ability to make life or death decisions. You make the wrong one and you will hang for it or be buried for it. The man made no threatening gestures and was obviously mentally ill. To shoot him may have been justified later in court, but who wants to live with killing a retarded person? If he was going to hurt someone thats different alltogether.



he was naked from the waist down. If the sister had been alone she would've been justified to fear rape. and thus justified to have shot him.

Link Posted: 10/11/2004 9:41:42 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2004 9:42:19 AM EST by Yojimbo]
I'm glad everything went well and no one was hurt. Next time I hope your sister and her husband close and lock the front door...

I would have definitely pulled a gun on him but whether or not he get shots depends on how he behaves.


Link Posted: 10/11/2004 9:44:04 AM EST
Wow that’s Suicide Walking In to Some Ones House.
So I Hope They Tossed away the Chair
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 9:45:25 AM EST
You do know he is coming back again ........................
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 9:50:15 AM EST

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
It would be extremely tough to pull off.



A big huge monster comes in my house naked from the waist down...I think I could articualte it just fine.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 9:51:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By Rob877:
Wow that’s Suicide Walking In to Some Ones House.
So I Hope They Tossed away the Chair



Holy geez guys!!!

poor guy was a few cards short of a full deck and you are talking of blowing him away? Just take the proper precautions to PREVENT stuff like this from happening and you wont have to take to arms.

Do I have a plan to use firearms should an intruder enter my premises. HECK YEAH but they have a few barriers to conquer before it gets to that point. Deadblts, Alarm, Dog, and THEN to arms. you have this guy blown away at the first second.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 9:53:13 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 9:54:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By jadams951:

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
It would be extremely tough to pull off.



A big huge monster comes in my house naked from the waist down...I think I could articualte it just fine.



exactly, plus he is not just a harmless disabled person if he is walking into peoples houses nekkid at night.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 9:54:10 AM EST
The dude was not wearing pants. He entered a home without permission (without his pants on).

Done, Lethal force would have been just. No verbal commands needed. The fact that he was naked, and entered the home is all a court needs. Does not mater if he has mental problems, personal problems, looking for his cat, whatever... you could dump a mag and walk.

I would of shot his ass


Samuel
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 9:56:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By cyanide:
You do know he is coming back again ........................



I agree
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 9:57:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By Samuel:
The dude was not wearing pants. He entered a home without permission (without his pants on).

Done, Lethal force would have been just. No verbal commands needed. The fact that he was naked, and entered the home is all a court needs. Does not mater if he has mental problems, personal problems, looking for his cat, whatever... you could dump a mag and walk.

I would of shot his ass


Samuel



You sir need a stress managment class or two. You don't mag dump at every opportunity

Human life cannot be replaced at any cost. These arm chair commandos who have never seen a shot fired in anger are a hoot.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 9:57:33 AM EST
No weapon and complying with orders, I wouldn't have shot.
The USP would've stayed on his chest though. And had he made a move he would've taken a round.



Link Posted: 10/11/2004 9:59:04 AM EST

Originally Posted By BlackDog714:

Originally Posted By cyanide:
You do know he is coming back again ........................



I agree



Why do you all say that? Seriously. It would have never occured to me.

Bob
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 9:59:31 AM EST
that would be a tough call. If he was as compliant as stated above . There probably would be no need for discharging your weapon. On the other hand at the site of a firearm he may become irrate and unstable. Without knowing the man personally you cannot expect a total stranger to respond correctly to a large naked man entering your home in the evening.

now to play the devil's advocate..... large naked man enters your home with your wife present, you shoot him, he dies. Who could argue it wasn't self defense? 3 people only know the truth, two of them are married to each other and the 3rd is dead.

It would take a mighty insensitive jury to convict a man of murder. Stranger things have happened though.

J
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 10:04:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By Aim4MyHead:
that would be a tough call. If he was as compliant as stated above . There probably would be no need for discharging your weapon. On the other hand at the site of a firearm he may become irrate and unstable. Without knowing the man personally you cannot expect a total stranger to respond correctly to a large naked man entering your home in the evening.

now to play the devil's advocate..... large naked man enters your home with your wife present, you shoot him, he dies. Who could argue it wasn't self defense? 3 people only know the truth, two of them are married to each other and the 3rd is dead.

It would take a mighty insensitive jury to convict a man of murder. Stranger things have happened though.

J



I can agree on most of that, but the two witnesses have to live with what they know. I'm not being holier than thou, but it is tough to live with bad decisions
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 10:04:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:

Originally Posted By Samuel:
The dude was not wearing pants. He entered a home without permission (without his pants on).

Done, Lethal force would have been just. No verbal commands needed. The fact that he was naked, and entered the home is all a court needs. Does not mater if he has mental problems, personal problems, looking for his cat, whatever... you could dump a mag and walk.

I would of shot his ass


Samuel



You sir need a stress managment class or two. You don't mag dump at every opportunity

Human life cannot be replaced at any cost. These arm chair commandos who have never seen a shot fired in anger are a hoot.





Sure...
Dump a mag on a guy with his pants off walking into my house. You better believe it. And trust me I would not ask you or anyone else if it would be OK.

What makes you think I have never seen the results of a aggravated shooting before? (psst. i would go for head shots)



Samuel
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 10:06:59 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2004 10:09:08 AM EST by cyanide]

Originally Posted By Ky_Bob:

Originally Posted By BlackDog714:

Originally Posted By cyanide:
You do know he is coming back again ........................



I agree



Why do you all say that? Seriously. It would have never occurred to me.

Bob



My wife use to be a State Department of MR nurse, I heard her stories.

He may have a child's mind --- but he has an adult body and desires (not a good mix).

This is a real hairy situation. IMO
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 10:08:01 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 10:08:22 AM EST
Paintball gun..........should have had a paintball gun.


it turned out nicely though. I think it's good that nobody got hurt. Becuase the guy wasn't advancing on you, I think it would be a hard sell to a jury. Especially after they paint the handicap and how the poor guy was just confused.



Interesting story though, glad nobody was injured.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 10:10:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By cyanide:

Originally Posted By Ky_Bob:

Originally Posted By BlackDog714:

Originally Posted By cyanide:
You do know he is coming back again ........................



I agree



Why do you all say that? Seriously. It would have never occurred to me.

Bob



My wife use to be a MR nurse, I heard her stories.

He may have a child's mind --- but he has an adult body and desires (not a good mix).

This is a real hairy situation. IMO



I used to work with mentally challanged people all the time. He now feels its ok to come to the house. He will return, and as Cy said "a real hairy situation".
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 10:11:40 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2004 10:12:28 AM EST by IamtheNRA]
Tough situation...they should have locked the door...would have prevented the situation from even occurring...
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 10:16:39 AM EST
I thought you were worried that the E.P.T. test was POSITIVE!

"C'mere Sis"...............
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 10:16:42 AM EST
There are two sides to this. I teach kids and young adults with developmental disabilities paired with severe behavior problems. Everyone has this idea of the "gentle retard". Fact is they are more like us than they are different. Just because you have a disability doesn't mean that you aren't an asshole or aren't dangerous. And yes, often they do know what they are doing and do know right from wrong, no matter what anyone tells you.

That said, good job your sister picked up on what was going on and was able to resolve the problem. Many people with disabilities can seem threatening, especially because they often lack social skills and a sense of personal boundries, but are really harmless. The trick is in picking out the two. The key in situations like this is to not come out blazing but to go to a defensive position, preferrably armed, until you can tell what the problem is. People with disabilities do get/sneak out of their homes, it happens to my students quite often, but luckily the neighbors all know and know to give a call if they see it happening.

Just be reasonable folks.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 10:18:35 AM EST
even mentally retarded people can rape and kill. So that's he retarded isn't enough to persaude me from shooting. The sight of a gun might have frightened him off though. Hard to say. bottom line I guess I would have to say a man naked from the waist down comes into my house, he's dead.

Link Posted: 10/11/2004 10:22:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By Samuel:
The dude was not wearing pants. He entered a home without permission (without his pants on).

Done, Lethal force would have been just. No verbal commands needed. The fact that he was naked, and entered the home is all a court needs. Does not mater if he has mental problems, personal problems, looking for his cat, whatever... you could dump a mag and walk.

I would of shot his ass

Samuel



And if I was the lawyer, I would have witness after witness of how the poor victim had mental problems, but was the nicest man. He had the mental ability of a child and how you gunned him down even though he made no threatening actions. He was just confused.
If I didn't win in the criminal case, I would than proceed to my civil case. The civil case is a lot easier for me to win, I only have to convince a majority of the jury, not all of them. The burden of proof is way different in the civil trial (as a prosecutor I don't have to prove within a reasonable doubt)

"In a criminal trial, the burden of proof rests with the government, which must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. The defendant does not need to prove his or her innocence--the burden is on the government. In a civil trial, the plaintiff has the burden of proof, and generally must prove liability by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., the greater weight of the evidence.) The degree of proof required in a civil case is far less stringent than in a criminal case. Once again, the defendant does not have to prove that he or she is not liable. "

So, if I was a decent lawyer, I could get a huge settlement from you in a civil trial.

The kicker is that even if you were to win both the civil and criminal trial, I guarentee you that you would have spent more than $20,000 on a lawyer for your defense.
In this situation, it would have been better to have a weapon ready, and maybe even threaten the use of physical force.
In the situation above, no one was killed or hurt, no one went to jail, and no one had to spend thousands of dollars on legal fees to keep oneself out of prison. How would of shooting this guy made the situation any different?
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 10:26:50 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2004 10:28:15 AM EST by Yojimbo]
I'll say it again, close and lock the front door. Make it a little harder for those who want to break in to your home.

My inlaws also do not close and lock their front door on a regular basis. They act like no criminal would dare go to their nice safe neighborhood...

Also, why is it the people who leave their homes wide open are also the same ones who don't have a gun when they need it?
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 10:27:10 AM EST

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Originally Posted By Samuel:
The dude was not wearing pants. He entered a home without permission (without his pants on).

Done, Lethal force would have been just. No verbal commands needed. The fact that he was naked, and entered the home is all a court needs. Does not mater if he has mental problems, personal problems, looking for his cat, whatever... you could dump a mag and walk.

I would of shot his ass

Samuel



And if I was the lawyer, I would have witness after witness of how the poor victim had mental problems, but was the nicest man. He had the mental ability of a child and how you gunned him down even though he made no threatening actions. He was just confused.
If I didn't win in the criminal case, I would than proceed to my civil case. The civil case is a lot easier for me to win, I only have to convince a majority of the jury, not all of them. The burden of proof is way different in the civil trial (as a prosecutor I don't have to prove within a reasonable doubt)

"In a criminal trial, the burden of proof rests with the government, which must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. The defendant does not need to prove his or her innocence--the burden is on the government. In a civil trial, the plaintiff has the burden of proof, and generally must prove liability by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., the greater weight of the evidence.) The degree of proof required in a civil case is far less stringent than in a criminal case. Once again, the defendant does not have to prove that he or she is not liable. "

So, if I was a decent lawyer, I could get a huge settlement from you in a civil trial.

The kicker is that even if you were to win both the civil and criminal trial, I guarantee you that you would have spent more than $20,000 on a lawyer for your defense.
In this situation, it would have been better to have a weapon ready, and maybe even threaten the use of physical force.
In the situation above, no one was killed or hurt, no one went to jail, and no one had to spend thousands of dollars on legal fees to keep oneself out of prison. How would of shooting this guy made the situation any different?



Right now I am going to say this

enough with the law suit don't shoot scenario's.

They are all bull crap

Anybody can be sued for anything -- it don't float.

Even if your in the right you can be sued and lose.. so take the law suit "don't shoot scenario" and place it where the sun don't shine.

As far as legal shoot -- yes , you would have walked. You can only base the decision to shoot on what the person knew at that instant.

So I think it would have been a clean shoot.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 10:29:50 AM EST
Well, I was going to comment on the horrible civil case that would follow if you shot a black retarded person, moments before his momma came in the door. But someone beat me to it. In that EXACT situation, I would not have fired. BUT, anything more that could be percieved as aggression would have resulted in aforementioned mag dumpage. Sorry, my wifes life and my own are more important than ANYONE elses.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 10:32:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Originally Posted By Samuel:
The dude was not wearing pants. He entered a home without permission (without his pants on).

Done, Lethal force would have been just. No verbal commands needed. The fact that he was naked, and entered the home is all a court needs. Does not mater if he has mental problems, personal problems, looking for his cat, whatever... you could dump a mag and walk.

I would of shot his ass

Samuel



And if I was the lawyer, I would have witness after witness of how the poor victim had mental problems, but was the nicest man. He had the mental ability of a child and how you gunned him down even though he made no threatening actions. He was just confused.
If I didn't win in the criminal case, I would than proceed to my civil case. The civil case is a lot easier for me to win, I only have to convince a majority of the jury, not all of them. The burden of proof is way different in the civil trial (as a prosecutor I don't have to prove within a reasonable doubt)

"In a criminal trial, the burden of proof rests with the government, which must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. The defendant does not need to prove his or her innocence--the burden is on the government. In a civil trial, the plaintiff has the burden of proof, and generally must prove liability by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., the greater weight of the evidence.) The degree of proof required in a civil case is far less stringent than in a criminal case. Once again, the defendant does not have to prove that he or she is not liable. "

So, if I was a decent lawyer, I could get a huge settlement from you in a civil trial.

The kicker is that even if you were to win both the civil and criminal trial, I guarentee you that you would have spent more than $20,000 on a lawyer for your defense.
In this situation, it would have been better to have a weapon ready, and maybe even threaten the use of physical force.
In the situation above, no one was killed or hurt, no one went to jail, and no one had to spend thousands of dollars on legal fees to keep oneself out of prison. How would of shooting this guy made the situation any different
?



oh please that is an awefully general statement( or series of them) so what's next Farva, you going to do, hit the button for the wings on your car and fly away?

From what we can gather, the fellow broke in at Night in Texas, and there you can use lethal force to prevent theft at night. Your case will be hard to prove much less get off the ground, as for your civil suit, if it was me I would counter sue your client for negligence for the meer fact she knew he has an issue of talking a walk and disabled the alarm that prevented him from doing it. Next I would go after you their scumbag lawyer for judicial misconduct, in addition to filing complaints with the state bar association, then once your license is yanked and you are working at Dairy Queen we will see who is laughing

BTW ain't fantasyland great.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 10:34:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:

Originally Posted By jadams951:

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
It would be extremely tough to pull off.



A big huge monster comes in my house naked from the waist down...I think I could articualte it just fine.

Okay, would the jury believe that this beast who is just standing there is putting you in fear of your life?
IIRC, you are one of our local Austin boys...



Houston crew here bud
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 10:59:58 AM EST

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:
Human life cannot be replaced at any cost.



Thats a lie.

It happens every day new lives are born to replace all the old ones.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 11:21:04 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2004 11:21:58 AM EST by guardian855]

Originally Posted By cyanide:


enough with the law suit don't shoot scenario's.




Lawsuits are something that everyone should think of.

I wouldn't hesitate to defend my life, even if it meant I was going to get sued.

I was pointing out to a lot of the keyboard commandos around here, that a lot of money, time, and heartache can be saved if we think about every situation.

In the above scernario, no one got hurt, no one got jailed and no one got sued. Deciding to use deadly force would have changed that.

This scenario did happen, and deadly force wasn't used, and everyone came out all right. If the sister's husband pulled out a gun and shot the guy, he would have at least spent one night in jail, and his future would have been uncertain.

What these people should have done was
a) lock the front door so this wouldn't happen
b) as soon as the guy entered, run to whereever they store their weapons (I'll be honest, my guns are in my room, not by the front door)
c) call the police
d) prepare to defend themselves if the intruder followed them and threatened them with physical bodily injury (I yell at the guy to stop, tell him I'm armed and if he continues, than I shoot in this particular scenario)

Shooting someone coming through your door is a good way to go to jail. He might have been a drunk who was confused.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 11:28:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By OFFascist:

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:
Human life cannot be replaced at any cost.



Thats a lie.

It happens every day new lives are born to replace all the old ones.



That doesn't deserve a reply even.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 11:30:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
A shooter could argue that he was in fear for his life, but I believe then he'd have to articulate what the stranger was doing to put him in fear for his life.
It would be extremely tough to pull off.

not in SC. bang, bang, bang.he's dead. justifiable homicide.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 11:39:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Originally Posted By cyanide:


enough with the law suit don't shoot scenario's.




Lawsuits are something that everyone should think of.

I wouldn't hesitate to defend my life, even if it meant I was going to get sued.

I was pointing out to a lot of the keyboard commandos around here, that a lot of money, time, and heartache can be saved if we think about every situation.

In the above scernario, no one got hurt, no one got jailed and no one got sued. Deciding to use deadly force would have changed that.

This scenario did happen, and deadly force wasn't used, and everyone came out all right. If the sister's husband pulled out a gun and shot the guy, he would have at least spent one night in jail, and his future would have been uncertain.

What these people should have done was
a) lock the front door so this wouldn't happen
b) as soon as the guy entered, run to whereever they store their weapons (I'll be honest, my guns are in my room, not by the front door)
c) call the police
d) prepare to defend themselves if the intruder followed them and threatened them with physical bodily injury (I yell at the guy to stop, tell him I'm armed and if he continues, than I shoot in this particular scenario)

Shooting someone coming through your door is a good way to go to jail. He might have been a drunk who was confused.




People like you is why we have to lock our doors.


Let me break this down so "Non Keyboard Commandos" Can understand.


1. A big fat black guy walks into your house with no pants on.
2. Your wife is in the house (my house would have a 2 year old little girl running around)
3. You ask the guy to leave.
4. He leaves and you call the cops

Now you will have to live with the possibility of him returning.



Me being the keyboard commando I am would have thought deeply on this.

1. A big fat black guy walks into my house with no pants (butt naked)
2. I would be going for a gun watching my target.
3. He would have been dead.

The first thing going on in my little mind would be stop the threat. Not reason with him, think about his mother, or his cat.
A large man can go from your front door to your wife, child, yourself, a knife..... in seconds. Do you really think you have the time for that. Much less dial 911


Key Board Commando Huh? At least I ain't stupid


Samuel

­

Link Posted: 10/11/2004 11:45:31 AM EST
I would have locked my door -- but I do rarely forget, so let's say he just happens to come on that day.

I would certainly point my gun at him from a distance, but if he didn't make any threatening moves toward me, especially if he seemed confused or ill, I would have held my fire. But if he came too close, I would shoot. Hopefully, while he's keeping his distance, I could get to a phone and call 911 while holding him at gunpoint.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 11:47:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By OFFascist:

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:
Human life cannot be replaced at any cost.



Thats a lie.

It happens every day new lives are born to replace all the old ones.



You are a fucking retard.

You must also be a seriously alone freak.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 11:49:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By MrClean4Hire:

Originally Posted By Samuel:
The dude was not wearing pants. He entered a home without permission (without his pants on).

Done, Lethal force would have been just. No verbal commands needed. The fact that he was naked, and entered the home is all a court needs. Does not mater if he has mental problems, personal problems, looking for his cat, whatever... you could dump a mag and walk.

I would of shot his ass


Samuel



You sir need a stress managment class or two. You don't mag dump at every opportunity

Human life cannot be replaced at any cost. These arm chair commandos who have never seen a shot fired in anger are a hoot.



+1
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 11:57:15 AM EST
i would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6 anyday.


J
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 11:59:25 AM EST
In OK anyone entering your house unlawfully is eligable for a trip to the afterlife. no criminal or civil action can be taken against the homeowner. Sadly here in TX we would only be covered against criminal action. IMHO OK has their sh*t squared away.

Someone enters my house unlawfully day or night has a death wish. I should not fear criminal or civil prosecution while defending my family or house.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 12:08:12 PM EST
I don't think a shooting in this instance would have made it to criminal trial. 300# man walks in front door, at night, naked, with homeowners family in attendence. I can't see a DA in his right mind filing charges.

The civil cases OTOH would be smeared all over the tv and papers.


Hind sight is 20/20. I daresay most folks here would drop a 300# naked stranger barging thru the front door in the late evening.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 12:09:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Originally Posted By Samuel:
The dude was not wearing pants. He entered a home without permission (without his pants on).

Done, Lethal force would have been just. No verbal commands needed. The fact that he was naked, and entered the home is all a court needs. Does not mater if he has mental problems, personal problems, looking for his cat, whatever... you could dump a mag and walk.

I would of shot his ass

Samuel



And if I was the lawyer, I would have witness after witness of how the poor victim had mental problems, but was the nicest man. He had the mental ability of a child and how you gunned him down even though he made no threatening actions. He was just confused.
If I didn't win in the criminal case, I would than proceed to my civil case. The civil case is a lot easier for me to win, I only have to convince a majority of the jury, not all of them. The burden of proof is way different in the civil trial (as a prosecutor I don't have to prove within a reasonable doubt)

"In a criminal trial, the burden of proof rests with the government, which must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. The defendant does not need to prove his or her innocence--the burden is on the government. In a civil trial, the plaintiff has the burden of proof, and generally must prove liability by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., the greater weight of the evidence.) The degree of proof required in a civil case is far less stringent than in a criminal case. Once again, the defendant does not have to prove that he or she is not liable. "

So, if I was a decent lawyer, I could get a huge settlement from you in a civil trial.

The kicker is that even if you were to win both the civil and criminal trial, I guarentee you that you would have spent more than $20,000 on a lawyer for your defense.
In this situation, it would have been better to have a weapon ready, and maybe even threaten the use of physical force.
In the situation above, no one was killed or hurt, no one went to jail, and no one had to spend thousands of dollars on legal fees to keep oneself out of prison. How would of shooting this guy made the situation any different?




Not in Oklahoma, in our state we have a "Make My Day Law" Please read esp part C....

TITLE 21 ss 1289.25

Physical or Deadly Force Against Intruder,

A. The legislature herby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect safety within their own homes.

B. Any occupant of a dwelling is justified in useing any degree of physical force, including but not limited to deadly force, against another person who has made an unlawfull entry into that dwelling and when the occupant has a resonable belief that such person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant of the dwelling.

C. Any occupant of a dwelling useing physical force, including but not limited to deadly force, pursuant to the provisions of subsection B of this section, shall have an affirmative defense in any criminal prosecution for an offense arising from the resonable use of deadly force and shall be immune from civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the reasonable use of force.

D. The provisions of this section and the provisions of the Oklahoma Self Defense Act, sections 1 through 25 of this act, shall not be construed to require any person using a pistol pursuant to the provisions of this section to be licensed in any matter.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 12:11:39 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2004 12:12:56 PM EST by Samuel]

Originally Posted By supersix4:
In OK anyone entering your house unlawfully is eligable for a trip to the afterlife. no criminal or civil action can be taken against the homeowner. Sadly here in TX we would only be covered against criminal action. IMHO OK has their sh*t squared away.

Someone enters my house unlawfully day or night has a death wish. I should not fear criminal or civil prosecution while defending my family or house.



+1




$12.50 for a few bullets
$600.00 pistol
$22,000+ trying to keep my ass out of jail but had to go anyway



Knowing my Wife, Daughter, and others in the hood are safe = PRICELESS



Who says I am a cold SOB?





Samuel



Link Posted: 10/11/2004 12:32:07 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 1:00:37 PM EST
OK, this is a side note to the main discussion here:

What's up with everyone locking their front doors??? You guys don't let the evening breeze waft through your screen?

Look, I'm all for "securing your castle", but not at the expense of enjoying life. I refuse to live my life locked up behind bars and thick doors. That's one of the reasons why I'm on these forums.

If you can't leave your front door open while you're home, perhaps you're living in the wrong neighborhood? Either move or go outside and talk to your neighbors. Organize a neighborhood watch. Throw a block party. How in the world do you not know that there's a huge retarded man that lives a few doors down from you?

There are lots of things ruining this country and this anti-social attitude is one of them.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top