Re: The Second Amendment revisitedPosted By Bill Burghardt |
John Holt said:
This was once explained to me, though in an abridged version. Additionally, to make sure the assailant is(was) within the living space.
John,
I am not sure, but I suspect you are referring to the case where the party that owned a remote property got tired of it being robbed, and proceded to set a trap for the next intruder. SADLY, the owner used a trip wire to set off a gun that critically wounded the "perp" better known as the scumbag that knowingly entered anothers property to rob the party of his rightful goods. THIS case went against the property owner BECAUSE no ones life is in danger if the home was unoccupied at the time of robbery. THEREFORE the innocent home owner became the bad boy for using excessive force to protect his property. The law reads in most states that one may use force equal to that used to inflict injury as a preventative measure: i.e.: one cannot use a shotgun to stop a kid pilfering a candy bar, but the shotgun would be appropriate within your house AFTER the slime ball takes a shot at you, BUT only if the slime ball is facing you. If the slime ball has turned to escape and his weapon is not aimed at YOU, you have NO REASON to return fire as the deadly threat is now absent as the bum runs for the door to escape your return fire. IF the intruder drops the weapon and takes a position of non-resistance, and you then injure the bum, YOU are the attacker, even in your own house!
Ever wonder why so many police shooting are challenged in the court system, and why most police keep the camera in their vehicle running for ANY incident that arises. Cameras in the front and rear of your own vehicle could save your butt if you are the victim of an auto accident that is obviously anothers fault, yet hang you if you goof and cause the accident.
YMMV