Getting shot in the face is an expected and logical outcome if you bang on somebody's door at 3 in the morning. It really is.
Don't do that.
According to the New York Times, "The suspect, booked as Rubin Stacy, was hanged to a roadside tree within sight of the home of Mrs. Marion Jones, thirty year old mother of three children, who identified him as her assailant." Six deputies were escorting Stacy to a Dade County jail in Miami for "safekeeping." The six deputies were "overpowered" by approximately one hundred masked men, who ran their car off the road.
"As far as we can figure out," Deputy Wright was quoted as saying,"they just picked him up with the rope from the ground-didn't bother to push him from an automobile or anything. He was filled full of bullets, too. I guess they shot him before and after they hanged him."
"Subsequent investigation revealed that Stacy, a homeless tenant farmer, had gone to the house to ask for food; the woman became frightened and screamed when she saw Stacy's face."
It's not cowardice, it's resolve and commitment to self preservation and protection of my family.
Don't go around trying to enter somebody's home at 3 in the morning banging on the door and you won't get shot. It really is just that simple.
Getting shot in the face is an expected and logical outcome if you bang on somebody's door at 3 in the morning.
What if he opened the door and she attempted to enter via the storm door?
Because that would be home invasion which means good shoot. Especially after all the banging on the door for an extended period of time.
Why do you open the door for someone who is going to kill or cause great bodily harm. Is this what an average reasonable person does?
What if he opened the door and she attempted to enter via the storm door?
Because that would be home invasion which means good shoot. Especially after all the banging on the door for an extended period of time.
What if he opened the door and she attempted to enter via the storm door?
Because that would be home invasion which means good shoot. Especially after all the banging on the door for an extended period of time.
and she attempted to enter
Better question, what if she wasn't "attempting to enter"?
Why do you open the door for someone who is going to kill or cause great bodily harm. Is this what an average reasonable person does?
Then it depends on the legal territory. In most states (maybe all? Where the hell is DVC when you want him ), you've opened your door, and as such for you to have grounds to shoot you have to be in fear of your life (or the lives of other innocents.) Same goes for leaving your door unlocked. In other words, you have to be in fear to ever shoot. Breaking a door down is something that can put you in fear for your life. If I say "I'm going to kill you" you can't shoot me. If I say "I'm going to kill you" and produce a knife, I have then made a threat and shown the ability to make good on the threat.
Your grasp on defense law is terrible.
To see who is at the door. To assess if it's a threat.
Negative. No fear of life is required if an intruder is attempting to cross the threshold. This is the very foundation of castle doctrine.
Force is justifiable when....[actor] knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used: unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
And you're wrong. Go look at the laws; for example in Texas Castle Doctrine uses the word FORCE. An unlocked door does not require force, and so castle doctrine goes out the window:
I don't remember where you live, somewhere in the south, but I remember quoting your own state's laws to you before on this exact issue.
He is from Kentucky
[Force justifiable when] The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the
process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly
entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had
removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will
from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle;
Thank you. Makes this real simple:
Again, two words matter here Spidey: the AND means that they have to be there both unlawfully and by FORCE, which is the second key word. They cannot simply be there unlawfully; if you left the door open or if it was unlocked, no force was required to cross into the home. At that point in time, to be justified in shooting they would need to be of a direct threat to you or others. If they just sit there eating your cereal, you can't shoot.
If you want to disprove me, start quoting case law.
Thank you. Makes this real simple:
Again, two words matter here Spidey: the AND means that they have to be there both unlawfully and by FORCE, which is the second key word. They cannot simply be there unlawfully; if you left the door open or if it was unlocked, no force was required to cross into the home. At that point in time, to be justified in shooting they would need to be of a direct threat to you or others. If they just sit there eating your cereal, you can't shoot.
If you want to disprove me, start quoting case law.
503.080
b
b
b
Protection
of
property.
(1)
The
use
of
physical
force
by
a
defendant
upon
another
person
is
justifiable
when
the
defendant
believes
that
such
force
is
immediately
necessary
to
prevent:
(a)
The
commission
of
criminal
trespass,
robbery,
burglary,
or
other
felony
involving
the
use
of
force,
or
under
those
circumstances
permitted
pursuant
to
KRS
503.055,
in
a
dwelling,
building
or
upon
real
property
in
his
possession
or
in
the
possession
of
another
person
for
whose
protection
he
acts;
or
(b)
Theft,
criminal
mischief,
or
any
trespassory
taking
of
tangible,
movable
property
in
his
possession
or
in
the
possession
of
another
person
for
whose
protection
he
acts.
(2)
The
use
of
deadly
physical
force
by
a
defendant
upon
another
person
is
justifiable
under
subsection
(1)
only
when
the
defendant
believes
that
the
person
against
whom
such
force
is
used
is:
(a)
Attempting
to
dispossess
him
of
his
dwelling
otherwise
than
under
a
claim
of
right
to
its
possession;
or
(b)
Committing
or
attempting
to
commit
a
burglary,
robbery,
or
other
felony
involving
the
use
of
force,
or
under
those
circumstances
permitted
pursuant
to
KRS
503.055,
of
such
dwelling;
or
(c)
Committing
or
attempting
to
commit
arson
of
a
dwelling
or
other
building
in
his
possession.
(3)
A
person
does
not
have
a
duty
to
retreat
if
the
person
is
in
a
place
where
he
or
And at what point do you know such.
Are you a fan of the three little pigs?
Thank you. Makes this real simple:
Again, two words matter here Spidey: the AND means that they have to be there both unlawfully and by FORCE, which is the second key word. They cannot simply be there unlawfully; if you left the door open or if it was unlocked, no force was required to cross into the home. At that point in time, to be justified in shooting they would need to be of a direct threat to you or others. If they just sit there eating your cereal, you can't shoot.
If you want to disprove me, start quoting case law.
To see who is at the door. To assess if it's a threat.
Banging on door equals force.
A shoulder equals force.
You also left out my states law on trespass.
Negative. No fear of life is required if an intruder is attempting to cross the threshold. This is the very foundation of castle doctrine.
503.055b Use of defensive force regarding dwelling, residence, or occupied
vehicle -- Exceptions.
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death
or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive
force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the
process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly
entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had
removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will
from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
503.080 Protection of property.
(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is
justifiable under subsection (1) only when the defendant believes that the
person against whom such force is used is:
(a) Attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim
of right to its possession; or
(b) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary, robbery, or other felony
involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055, of such dwelling; or
(c) Committing or attempting to commit arson of a dwelling or other building
in his possession.
You're moving the goal posts. To refresh your memory:
This is saying you have to be in fear, and breaking a door down - using force - constitutes a reason to be in fear of your life.
You can only use deadly force when confronted with force/when you are in fear of your life.
I was only referring to the 911 call.
"Uh, yes, I just shot somebody on my front porch with a shotgun banging on my door"
Nothing more significant than banging on the door was mentioned for shooting. One would expect the most significant reason for the shooting being stated in the 911 call. He feared the banging, yet opened and shot.
Bullfucking shit.
Attempting to cross the threshold = fear of life or death is presumed by law.
Do you even castle doctrine bro? What state do you live in and why are so confused?
I guess you didn't read the sections of the KRS I quoted to you. Your state requires you to be in fear of your life to shoot, or to suspect that the person is trying to remove you from your property. Go back and read the KRS.
Go ahead, quote me some case law. You can't - because if someone walks through your open door, you cannot be in fear if they take one step inside your door and just stand there.