Most people on this site are familiar with the Tueller drill and "21' rule"; there were 2 against 1--disparity of force; they were coming AT you. Arguably they didn't need to be armed to be a threat to you and given that they came AT you while committing a crime, I think the shooting is legit. What an anti-gun owner bigot of a prosecutor would make of it is another question, but with a good lawyer I think this defensible.21 feet
Toward you.
Nope
Yep.
A BG strung out on meth isn't just a BG. Feel no pain and even a trained man can still be beat.Trained athletes who could defend a RNC are not the type to rob tool sheds. People dont need to be so afraid of criminals. Far more often than not, people who rob/steal are kids or drug addicts.
You've been fighting since you were 8 and you dont have enough confidence in yourself or your abilities to take down a couple of nobodies. Take it from me, thats really dumb.
Just as you get to the shed, the door opens and two men rush out. You can see that one man is carrying your new Honda generator and the other is empty-handed.
Trained athletes who could defend a RNC are not the type to rob tool sheds. People dont need to be so afraid of criminals. Far more often than not, people who rob/steal are kids or drug addicts.
You've been fighting since you were 8 and you dont have enough confidence in yourself or your abilities to take down a couple of nobodies. Take it from me, thats really dumb.
Trained athletes who could defend a RNC are not the type to rob tool sheds. People dont need to be so afraid of criminals. Far more often than not, people who rob/steal are kids or drug addicts.
You've been fighting since you were 8 and you dont have enough confidence in yourself or your abilities to take down a couple of nobodies. Take it from me, thats really dumb.
Yep, and you'd better get a good lawyer.Are you going to jail?
Guy
Has anyone noticed a recurring theme in all of the what if threads? The ability of the prosecutor to bring charges even if the incident appears to fall under the letter of the law. What does this say about our legal system and it's hold over the average citizen? Not trying to hijack the thread but this comes up too many times to just ignore. In a situation such as the one posted by the op, the real question is if the prosecutor has an agenda other than upholding the letter of the law and all the answers are contingent on that, not how the law is written, but how it will be interpreted by any one individual with the power to make that call.
Taken from Holder v State...The curtilage is defined on a case-by-case basis by reference to factors that determine whether a person's expectation of privacy in the area adjacent to the home is reasonable and analysis whether the area embraces the intimacy associated with the sanctity of the home and privacies of life. Thus defining the curtilage requires more than an identification of the physical area immediately adjacent to the home; whether the area is enclosed, how it is being used, and the steps taken to keep it out of view are also analyzed to determine whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area, demonstrating that it embraces the characteristics similar to those associated with the sanctity of the home. This required approach for defining the curtilage is consistent with the principle that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.
Silverado, no problem with the prosecutor making the call, problem is with the fact that they are in an elected position and therefore bring a political agenda into a situation that calls for an unbiased look at the law and shades the interpretation of same
Remember, the IC says you can use deadly force (paraphrasing) to stop an invasion or attack on your home or curtilage.
If your shed is part of your curtilage, then you're good to go, but that would be determined in court. Most likely the courts are gonna say "no" and your going down.
This isn't 100% relevant to a shooting case, but was the first case that I came across that discusses what a curtilage is
Taken from Holder v State
No. 87S05-0505-CR-194 SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA 847 N.E.2d 930; 2006 Ind. LEXIS 413
The only thing that will make the situation any better is a shift in the paradigm that results in the good of the nation being placed before any political agenda.