or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Lawyers: Could you kill someone who breaks into your house?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Lawyers: Could you kill someone who breaks into your house? - Page 2

post #16 of 94
Tennessee applies the castle doctrine- that there is a presumption that the homeowner had reasonable belief of death or serious bodily injury. However, this is just a presumption and could be refuted with proper evidence.
post #17 of 94
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedLantern View Post
Tennessee applies the castle doctrine- that there is a presumption that the homeowner had reasonable belief of death or serious bodily injury. However, this is just a presumption and could be refuted with proper evidence.

Who would try do defend a criminal?
post #18 of 94
Criminal Defense != NYBIGLAW
post #19 of 94
Thread Starter 
How could someone who burglarizes homes afford NY BIGLAW?
post #20 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuxeStyles View Post
How could someone who burglarizes homes afford NY BIGLAW?

He also knocks off parking meters.
post #21 of 94
Will litigate 4 PS3?
post #22 of 94
anytime i visited my my crazy bastard neighbour in new orleans, i'd open the door to find him pointing his loaded .357 magnum at me
post #23 of 94
I think the moment you break into someone's home you basically forfeit every basic right. I have absolutely no problems with burglars being shot dead.
post #24 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Macaque View Post
it depends.

This is the proper answer for all attorneys.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Macaque View Post
this is not legal advice.

This is the proper disclaimer for the proper answer for all attorneys.

On some levels, I'm so glad I'm not a lawyer.
post #25 of 94
I am not a lawyer but I know it varies state-to-state. Some states have "Castle Law" which entitles you to defend your ground with deadly force, and some states have an obligation to retreat. A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept arising from English Common Law[1] that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine. Stand Your Ground: relieves the home's occupants of any duty to retreat or announce their intent to use deadly force before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves. Castle Doctrine (no duty to retreat in the home) states: * Alaska * California (California Penal Code § 198.5 sets forth that unlawful, forcible entry into one's residence by someone not a member of the household creates the presumption that the resident held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury should he or she use deadly force against the intruder. This would make the homicide justifiable under CPC § 197[1]. CALCRIM 506 gives the instruction, "A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger ... has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating." However, it also states that "[People v. Ceballos] specifically held that burglaries which 'do not reasonably create a fear of great bodily harm' are not sufficient 'cause for exaction of human life.'”) * Colorado * Connecticut * Hawaii (Retreat required outside the home if it can be done in "complete safety.") * Kansas (§ 21-3212. Use of force in defense of dwelling; no duty to retreat. (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon such person's dwelling or occupied vehicle.) * Maine (Deadly force justified to terminate criminal trespass AND another crime within home, or to stop unlawful and imminent use of deadly force, or to effect a citizen's arrest against deadly force; duty to retreat not specifically removed)[26] * Maryland See Maryland self-defense (Case-law, not statute, incorporates the commonlaw castle-doctrine into Maryland self-defense law. Invitees or guests may have duty to retreat based on mixed case law.) * Massachusetts * Michigan (more recent law—Act 309 of 2006—does not relieve duty to retreat "unless [deadly force is] necessary to prevent imminent death;" this represents no change from common law, which does not require retreat unless it can be safely done) * Minnesota No duty to retreat before using deadly force to prevent a felony in one's place of abode; no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self defense in one's place of abode [27]) * Mississippi (to use reference, select "Code of 1972" and search "retreat") * Missouri (Extends Castle Doctrine to one's vehicle) * Ohio (Extends to vehicles of self and immediate family; effective September 9, 2008.[28] Section 2901.09) * Oregon. (ORS 161.209-229. Use of force justifiable in a range of scenarios without a duty to retreat specified. Oregon Supreme Court affirmed in State of Oregon v. Sandoval that the law "sets out a specific set of circumstances that justify a person's use of deadly force (that the person reasonably believes that another person is using or about to use deadly force against him or her) and does not interpose any additional requirement (including a requirement that there be no means of escape).") * New Jersey ("Statutes" link in sidebar, see New Jersey Statutes 2C:3-4, retreat required outside home if actor knows he can avoid necessity of deadly force in complete safety, etc.) * North Carolina * Rhode Island * Utah * West Virginia (Senate bill 145 signed March 12, 2008. WV code §55-7-22) * Wyoming Stand your ground ( no duty to retreat anywhere) states: # Alabama # Arizona # Florida # Georgia # Indiana # Kentucky # Louisiana # Oklahoma §21-1289.25 # South Carolina (Persons not "required to needlessly retreat.") # Texas # Tennessee 2007 Tenn. Pub. Acts Ch. 210 (Amends Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-11-611) # Utah # Washington Courtesy of Wikipedia.
post #26 of 94
What if you genuinely think the intruder is a threat, but it turns out that he is unarmed and 105 pounds? In other words, can you go to jail for being a scardy cat?
post #27 of 94
Usually has to be reasonable belief.
post #28 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
This is the proper answer for all attorneys. This is the proper disclaimer for the proper answer for all attorneys. On some levels, I'm so glad I'm not a lawyer.
I know it's one of your things to bash attorneys, but everything in law truly does depend on the facts. For instance, in Maryland, where I am barred, the self-defense law requires the three following factors: 1. The defendant actually believed that he was in immediate and imminent danger of bodily harm. 2. The defendant's belief was reasonable. 3. The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend himself in light of the threatenend or actual harm. Deadly-force is that amount of force reasonably calculated to cause death or serious bodily harm. If the defendant is found to have used deadly-force, it must be decided whether the use of deadly-force was reasonable. Deadly-force is reasonable if the defendant actually had a reasonable belief that the aggressor's force was or would be deadly and that the defendant needed a deadly-force response. In addition, before using deadly-force, the defendant is required to make all reasonable effort to retreat. The defendant does not have to retreat if the defendant was in his home, retreat was unsafe, the avenue of retreat was unknown to the defendant, the defendant was being robbed, the defendant was lawfully arresting the victim. If the defendant was found to have not used deadly-force, then the defendant had no duty to retreat. Blah, blah, blah, legal mumbo jumbo. And that's just self-defense. There's a whole other thing for defense of others, defense of property, and defense of your home. However, you can see how the answer simply depends on the facts of each particular case.
post #29 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by zbromer View Post
I know it's one of your things to bash attorneys, but everything in law truly does depend on the facts. For instance, in Maryland, where I am barred, the self-defense law requires the three following factors: 1. The defendant actually believed that he was in immediate and imminent danger of bodily harm. 2. The defendant's belief was reasonable. 3. The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend himself in light of the threatenend or actual harm. Deadly-force is that amount of force reasonably calculated to cause death or serious bodily harm. If the defendant is found to have used deadly-force, it must be decided whether the use of deadly-force was reasonable. Deadly-force is reasonable if the defendant actually had a reasonable belief that the aggressor's force was or would be deadly and that the defendant needed a deadly-force response. In addition, before using deadly-force, the defendant is required to make all reasonable effort to retreat. The defendant does not have to retreat if the defendant was in his home, retreat was unsafe, the avenue of retreat was unknown to the defendant, the defendant was being robbed, the defendant was lawfully arresting the victim. If the defendant was found to have not used deadly-force, then the defendant had no duty to retreat. Blah, blah, blah, legal mumbo jumbo. And that's just self-defense. There's a whole other thing for defense of others, defense of property, and defense of your home. However, you can see how the answer simply depends on the facts of each particular case.
I'm sure all this makes perfect legal sense, as you seem to be a really good attorney. Me? Some threatens my life, or god forbid my wife? While I assiduously avoid being any pretense at being an ITG, I can say with all honesty, I will do my utmost to end his life, and not worry about any legislation. Ahhh, to be a civilian! Oh, and btw, my attorney answer was correct, wasn't it? "It depends."
post #30 of 94
After you shoot the fucker, preferrably DEAD,

-keep mouth shut to cops except keep repeating the following:
"I was afraid for my life and for the life of my family"
-talk only to your lawyer


Disclaimer: this is NOT legal advice, and if you read this and do this and follow my line of reasoning and get in trouble, then good luck to you
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Lawyers: Could you kill someone who breaks into your house?