View Full Version : Remember the guy who shot thru his door??
KYBOY
08-21-2008, 09:27 PM
Their not indicting him..
http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/27244079.html
MercuryNewt
08-21-2008, 09:33 PM
Interesting story, but I have to agree with the grand jury.
I disagree with the GJ, and I've disagreed all along. I knock on a hundred doors a day at work, and it scares me to know that someone could shoot me through the door and claim they felt "threatened" and get away with it. Believe me, I'm all for the Castle doctrine, but I think anyone that shoots a man through a locked door a coward and a possibly a murderer.
Can't help the way I feel. I know if I had done the same thing that I'd be sitting in jail right now.
deadaim
08-21-2008, 10:12 PM
I disagree with the GJ, and I've disagreed all along. I knock on a hundred doors a day at work, and it scares me to know that someone could shoot me through the door and claim they felt "threatened" and get away with it. Believe me, I'm all for the Castle doctrine, but I think anyone that shoots a man through a locked door a coward and a possibly a murderer.
Can't help the way I feel. I know if I had done the same thing that I'd be sitting in jail right now.
Art,
We are talking about wee hours of the morning and from the story he was beating the door off the hinges and hollering a bunch of drunken jibberish. This is not the way your typical UPS guy is going to arrive. I did say typical:D
The lesson to be taken from this is learn how to hold your liquor not gun control...................
Snareman2
08-21-2008, 11:05 PM
Amen. Protect you and yours!
12 pointer
08-21-2008, 11:12 PM
Art,
We are talking about wee hours of the morning and from the story he was beating the door off the hinges and hollering a bunch of drunken jibberish. This is not the way your typical UPS guy is going to arrive. I did say typical:D
The lesson to be taken from this is learn how to hold your liquor not gun control...................
I agree. What ever good came from a bottle????? NOTHING!!!!!!!!!
slickhead slayer
08-21-2008, 11:42 PM
Art,
We are talking about wee hours of the morning and from the story he was beating the door off the hinges and hollering a bunch of drunken jibberish. This is not the way your typical UPS guy is going to arrive.
....
Speak for yourself, and your UPS driver.:D
slickhead slayer
08-21-2008, 11:44 PM
Like I said last time this came about, I am not sure how anybody here can judge without knowing the facts. The details here are REAL important. Maybe he kicked the door so much , that half the door was torn down, and the man was half way through it. I don't know the details, so I won't judge.
Strutter
08-22-2008, 07:13 AM
I think this sets a very bad precedent for the future.
Rob
I'm thinking this happened right at day break, around 6 am. Personally I wouldn't call that the "wee hours". As far as I can tell, murder laws are not based around time tables.
You guys have to remember that this guy was trying to wake up his friends, so he thought, in a neighborhood where the houses all look the same and even share driveways... He was not kicking the door in, and reports suggested that the door was never breached. You could tell by pictures of the door later on that there was no damage. You must also remember that there were others in the house that could have called 911, but did not do so until after the shot was fired although the report said he had been beating on the door for a number of minutes.
I know some of you will sit here and say good for the homeowner. You can blame it on anything you want, booze, ect. Fact of the matter is that 99.9% of us on here would never shoot an unarmed man through locked door. The door opens then it's a different story. Do you guys think you'd feel good about yourself knowing you could have handled the situation differently and a woman would still have her husband and the kids would still have a father?
MercuryNewt
08-22-2008, 08:11 AM
Art,
You seem to know much more about the story than I and I'm only concerned with the Castle Doctrine. There are two sides to every story and much more to this than meets the eye. Personally, I'm not shooting someone through my door, but I would have no issue if they crossed the threshold.
Art,
You seem to know much more about the story than I and I'm only concerned with the Castle Doctrine. There are two sides to every story and much more to this than meets the eye. Personally, I'm not shooting someone through my door, but I would have no issue if they crossed the threshold.
Believe me, if anyone is for the Castle Doctrine, it's me. I sleep with a loaded gun under my pillow and another one under my bed. I have my CCDW permit and usually almost always carry a gun with me.
However, I just can't get behind what this guy did. Knowing the laws as it applies to using a firearm for self-defense I just don't understand how this wasn't at least some watered down charge, such as second degree manslaughter or even reckless homicide.
This single case is not what bothers me, it's what might happen in the future because of the failure to press charges in this case. Wait and see what happens when a cop gets shot through a door when he's beating on someone's door at an odd hour.;)
KY_Fried
08-22-2008, 09:02 AM
I think he should have at least fired a warning shot. I'm all for protecting yourself but when the "attacker" is locked outside I can't see that as self defense.
AMR40509
08-22-2008, 09:11 AM
It seems pretty simple to me.
If the door was in the process of actually being compromised, I think shots would be in order. If it was just someone pounding on it, then a 911 call and waiting (behind cover) waiting for the door to possibly become compromised would be in order. By compromised I don’t necessarily mean door on the ground – It it’s been damaged enough that it’s getting close…I think that it would be time for things to get loud…
W/O knowing the case in detail, can't make a call on what happened there though.
I know that if I were broken down on the side of the road in the middle of nowhere, at night, out of cell phone range....I wouldn't love the idea of having to go knock on a door....but I wouldn't expect the meeting to go "knock knock boom" either though.
AMR40509
08-22-2008, 09:13 AM
I think he should have at least fired a warning shot. I'm all for protecting yourself but when the "attacker" is locked outside I can't see that as self defense.
I HATE the idea of a warning shot though...
1 - that round has to go somewhere, I don't have a bullet trap in my entry hall.
2 – if I really think someone is there to do me harm… why warn them. I would rather keep the element of surprise in my favor. I don’t fire a round up in the air when I’m deer hunting so I can try a running shot either ;-)
KY_Fried
08-22-2008, 12:24 PM
I HATE the idea of a warning shot though...
1 - that round has to go somewhere, I don't have a bullet trap in my entry hall.
2 – if I really think someone is there to do me harm… why warn them. I would rather keep the element of surprise in my favor. I don’t fire a round up in the air when I’m deer hunting so I can try a running shot either ;-)
1. He could shoot at the floor, not much of a chance of hitting someone that way
2. Because if I'm about to take a human life I want to make sure it's a last resort. Not possible in every scenario I know, but in this case it was. Even if he was a bad guy he might think twice about what he's about to do if he knew they had a gun.
slickhead slayer
08-22-2008, 12:31 PM
I'm thinking this happened right at day break, around 6 am. Personally I wouldn't call that the "wee hours". As far as I can tell, murder laws are not based around time tables.
You guys have to remember that this guy was trying to wake up his friends, so he thought, in a neighborhood where the houses all look the same and even share driveways... He was not kicking the door in, and reports suggested that the door was never breached. You could tell by pictures of the door later on that there was no damage. You must also remember that there were others in the house that could have called 911, but did not do so until after the shot was fired although the report said he had been beating on the door for a number of minutes.
I know some of you will sit here and say good for the homeowner. You can blame it on anything you want, booze, ect. Fact of the matter is that 99.9% of us on here would never shoot an unarmed man through locked door. The door opens then it's a different story. Do you guys think you'd feel good about yourself knowing you could have handled the situation differently and a woman would still have her husband and the kids would still have a father?
I happen to agree with you, if the door wasn't compromised, and there was no threat of it being compromised. But I don't know the details at all, and I think they are important. 12 jurors heard the case, and felt there was no need to press charges, so perhaps there is another side to this story.
KYBOY
08-22-2008, 12:36 PM
There has to be a little more to it..I just cant see the grand jury letting a guy slide for shooting someone for "just knocking" on his door..Ill bet diamonds against dougnuts that theres more to it than that..
deadaim
08-22-2008, 12:57 PM
I'm thinking this happened right at day break, around 6 am. Personally I wouldn't call that the "wee hours". As far as I can tell, murder laws are not based around time tables.
You guys have to remember that this guy was trying to wake up his friends, so he thought, in a neighborhood where the houses all look the same and even share driveways... He was not kicking the door in, and reports suggested that the door was never breached. You could tell by pictures of the door later on that there was no damage. You must also remember that there were others in the house that could have called 911, but did not do so until after the shot was fired although the report said he had been beating on the door for a number of minutes.
I know some of you will sit here and say good for the homeowner. You can blame it on anything you want, booze, ect. Fact of the matter is that 99.9% of us on here would never shoot an unarmed man through locked door. The door opens then it's a different story. Do you guys think you'd feel good about yourself knowing you could have handled the situation differently and a woman would still have her husband and the kids would still have a father?
The grand jury must have had some good information that led them to believe the homeowner was justified. Im sure there had to be at least some Dems/anti gun types on that jury. I framed almost every house in Chelsea woods for Cutter homes in the mid 80s those houses do look alike.
He had to have been giving that door heck and making some type of threats for the jury to rule like they did.............................for what its worth I would have just waited until he broke the door in before I shot personly but I wasnt in the fellows shoes who shot thru the door so I cant judge.
redneck1377
08-22-2008, 01:16 PM
how close was the home owner to the door when he shot ? when the door give away the man could had cross the room quick enough to disarm the home owner
All I can say is that I don't know what the GJ was told or how it was presented to them. I do know that 1) the door was never actually breached 2) the guy WAS beating the heck out of the door, just as any of us probably would have if we were freezing outside and we knew our buddies were asleep inside.
To me, the entire case would revolve around the front door being breached, and clearly it never was. I don't see how anything beyond that could overcome that fact.
The way I see it is that this case's outcome will be brought up in many future cases. To know that it is legal to shoot an unarmed man through a sealed barrier should scare everyone IMO. It allows the gun to become the FIRST resort instead of the last. It says, "Don't call the cops, shoot first and ask questions later".
MsgMills
08-23-2008, 08:39 AM
Pathetic is all I got say....The only time the gun should have been fired is if the guy got through the door and was a real danger to you and your family. This guy just got away with murder point blank......:(
Sad thing about this whole ordeal is for the man's family who was shot...How did the outcome of his death help determine if or not he was killed in the line of committing a crime....Insurance companies won't pay death benefit insurance is a person was killed while committing a crime....
Was this listed as an accident for the dead man's family...Or was it listed as a potential crime against the dead man.... If so then if he had Death benefits from an Insurance Company, his family might not collect..... Sad indeed.....:(:(
redneck1377
08-23-2008, 10:55 AM
All I can say is that I don't know what the GJ was told or how it was presented to them. I do know that 1) the door was never actually breached 2) the guy WAS beating the heck out of the door, just as any of us probably would have if we were freezing outside and we knew our buddies were asleep inside.
To me, the entire case would revolve around the front door being breached, and clearly it never was. I don't see how anything beyond that could overcome that fact.
The way I see it is that this case's outcome will be brought up in many future cases. To know that it is legal to shoot an unarmed man through a sealed barrier should scare everyone IMO. It allows the gun to become the FIRST resort instead of the last. It says, "Don't call the cops, shoot first and ask questions later".
If you are on the inside of your home and someone that you never saw before are trying to kick your door down , tell me how will you know wheter or not he is arm
Strutter
08-23-2008, 01:12 PM
"If you are on the inside of your home and someone that you never saw before are trying to kick your door down , tell me how will you know wheter or not he is arm."
Simple. You wait til he comes through the door and then shoot him if he's armed. As long as he's outside, he is no threat. I think they dropped the ball on this one.
Rob
If you are on the inside of your home and someone that you never saw before are trying to kick your door down , tell me how will you know wheter or not he is arm
It would be impossible, but is there any circumstance where it's ok to shoot at someone if you are unsure of something? I know lots of hunters are killed every year by someone who THOUGHT they were a deer or turkey. Once you pull that trigger, it's too late.
bowhunter08
08-23-2008, 04:06 PM
I agree art. If the man never breched the door, i don't see how they could let him walk a free man. I am all for protecting my family, but i am not going to shoot a man through my door for beating on it. Thats why they make phone, to call the police. If he breaks through the door, then i have no problem with that.
To me, the entire case would revolve around the front door being breached, and clearly it never was. I don't see how anything beyond that could overcome that fact.
turkeytalker
08-23-2008, 08:24 PM
Believe me, if anyone is for the Castle Doctrine, it's me.
I'm really starting to doubt that.
Wait and see what happens when a cop gets shot through a door when he's beating on someone's door at an odd hour.;)
Hmmm, it's called No Knock warrants,except the cops get to break in and shoot up everybody even if its the wrong house:mad:. Looks to me like the jury ruled the right way because it wasn't the homeowner who laid out drunk all night and decided to kick someones door in.
Art i see your lips moving but can't hear you man, it's all about PERSONAL responsibility right?
limbhanger
08-24-2008, 02:53 AM
Simple. You wait til he comes through the door and then shoot him if he's armed. As long as he's outside, he is no threat. I think they dropped the ball on this one.
Rob
Who cares if he's armed or not, he just came through MY door.
lonesomepine
08-24-2008, 09:43 AM
I agree. What ever good came from a bottle????? NOTHING!!!!!!!!!
Penicillin for one thing
Hmmm, it's called No Knock warrants,except the cops get to break in and shoot up everybody even if its the wrong house:mad:. Looks to me like the jury ruled the right way because it wasn't the homeowner who laid out drunk all night and decided to kick someones door in.
Art i see your lips moving but can't hear you man, it's all about PERSONAL responsibility right?
Who's door got kicked in? Didn't happen. That's seems to be something that a few of you are not understanding about this case. If the door was kicked in, how could he shoot THROUGH the door? Of course I would have smoked the guy had he kicked the door down, but he didn't.
Let's put it this way. Would you have done it exactly the same as the homeowner? Would you have wanted your future freedom to be in the hands of a grand jury for the last 5 months while you and your family waited to find out if you might become a convicted murderer?
Usually self defense cases are settled within days, if not hours. They don't go to a grand jury for months, so that gives you an idea how close this was.
To me a young guy with a pistol and an itchy trigger finger, lack of common sense, and a fear of the world is much more dangerous than a guy who's hung over, knocking on the wrong door.
Who's door got kicked in? Didn't happen. That's seems to be something that a few of you are not understanding about this case. If the door was kicked in, how could he shoot THROUGH the door? Of course I would have smoked the guy had he kicked the door down, but he didn't.
Let's put it this way. Would you have done it exactly the same as the homeowner? Would you have wanted your future freedom to be in the hands of a grand jury for the last 5 months while you and your family waited to find out if you might become a convicted murderer?
Usually self defense cases are settled within days, if not hours. They don't go to a grand jury for months, so that gives you an idea how close this was.
To me a young guy with a pistol and an itchy trigger finger, lack of common sense, and a fear of the world is much more dangerous than a guy who's hung over, knocking on the wrong door.
Actually they a Grand Jury does not deliberate for months, usually over with in minutes/hour. I don't know if you have set on a Grand Jury before but if not, what happens is they (usually) only hear the prosecution's side of the story. The prosecuting attorney lays out the facts and gives the criteria of the offense. Meaning, it that this, this and this to be considered murder 1. If not all criteria is met, it lowered to murder 2 and weighed, then murder 3. If the prosecution can not present enough facts/evidence it will be thrown out. FYI, the Grand Jury only requires 9 out of 12 for an indictment. Also, even if facts ARE presented, the Grand Jury may not indite. An example, guy steals tools, guy who had tools stole catches and beats within inch of life. Plenty of evidence that assault and battery occurred, Grand Jury may say, "served him right"!;)
I'm guessing there is some things in this story that have not been reported.
Actually they a Grand Jury does not deliberate for months, usually over with in minutes/hour. I don't know if you have set on a Grand Jury before but if not, what happens is they (usually) only hear the prosecution's side of the story. The prosecuting attorney lays out the facts and gives the criteria of the offense. Meaning, it that this, this and this to be considered murder 1. If not all criteria is met, it lowered to murder 2 and weighed, then murder 3. If the prosecution can not present enough facts/evidence it will be thrown out. FYI, the Grand Jury only requires 9 out of 12 for an indictment. Also, even if facts ARE presented, the Grand Jury may not indite. An example, guy steals tools, guy who had tools stole catches and beats within inch of life. Plenty of evidence that assault and battery occurred, Grand Jury may say, "served him right"!;)
I'm guessing there is some things in this story that have not been reported.
You're right, I've never been on a grand jury or even served jury duty so I don't know what the heck I'm talking about:D. Basically what I meant was that this guy has had this cloud hanging over him for months now. To me, if it was cut and dry self-defense then it would have been resolved probably that same day like most every other self defense case we hear about. IMO, what saved the homeowner from being indicted was that he is so young. It just wouldn't have made anything better by ruining another families life.
I'm sure we don't know ALL the facts, and never will, but I feel like enough is known to draw a pretty solid conclusion. The guy didn't have a weapon, he was shot through a locked door, and the cops were not called until after the fact even though other people were present inside the home. That flies directly against everything we were taught in CCDW class, but I suspect the Castle doctrine changed some of that.
I know 99.9% of the people who are taking up for the shooter would not have handled the situation the same way. They are just looking at this case as strictly a pro-gun case and it's going to be hard to convince some that the gun owner isn't always right.
buckfever
08-25-2008, 04:06 PM
You're right, I've never been on a grand jury or even served jury duty so I don't know what the heck I'm talking about:D. Basically what I meant was that this guy has had this cloud hanging over him for months now. To me, if it was cut and dry self-defense then it would have been resolved probably that same day like most every other self defense case we hear about. IMO, what saved the homeowner from being indicted was that he is so young. It just wouldn't have made anything better by ruining another families life.
I'm sure we don't know ALL the facts, and never will, but I feel like enough is known to draw a pretty solid conclusion. The guy didn't have a weapon, he was shot through a locked door, and the cops were not called until after the fact even though other people were present inside the home. That flies directly against everything we were taught in CCDW class, but I suspect the Castle doctrine changed some of that.
I know 99.9% of the people who are taking up for the shooter would not have handled the situation the same way. They are just looking at this case as strictly a pro-gun case and it's going to be hard to convince some that the gun owner isn't always right.
Actually, the grand jury probably would have heard no evidence concerning self-defense. Self-defense is an affirmative defense that must be proved by the defendant at trial. At grand jury indictments, only the prosecutor presents evidence. The reason why this was taken to the grand jury in the first place was b/c of political pressure for outside sources (more than likely anti-gun advocates).
I don't know what was presented, and I also didn't like this story when I heard it, but it's hard to get around the reality that 12 ordinary jurors all decided that there wasn't even "probable cause" to believe that a crime had been committed, let alone proof "beyond a reasonable doubt". Nobody on this forum has any idea of what happened or what facts were presented. You can say all you want: "The door wasn't breached, so he committed murder", but the fact that the grand jury came down the way it did tells me that the shooter acted reasonably under those circumstances.
Actually, the grand jury probably would have heard no evidence concerning self-defense. Self-defense is an affirmative defense that must be proved by the defendant at trial. At grand jury indictments, only the prosecutor presents evidence. The reason why this was taken to the grand jury in the first place was b/c of political pressure for outside sources (more than likely anti-gun advocates).
I don't know what was presented, and I also didn't like this story when I heard it, but it's hard to get around the reality that 12 ordinary jurors all decided that there wasn't even "probable cause" to believe that a crime had been committed, let alone proof "beyond a reasonable doubt". Nobody on this forum has any idea of what happened or what facts were presented. You can say all you want: "The door wasn't breached, so he committed murder", but the fact that the grand jury came down the way it did tells me that the shooter acted reasonably under those circumstances.
Well, let me say that I don't buy the political pressure theory.
What I'm starting to take from all this is that prior to July of 06, which I assume is when the Castle Doctrine was instituted here in KY, that this would have been a criminal act?
Looking over KRS 503.055 for the first time, I am guessing that what he did was legal but still could have gone the other way on a bad day. All I know is that if I had done the same thing, I'd be in the pokey. My neighborhood has some shady characters, so if i catch one of them trying to break in I'll just shoot the SOB in the face because of this.
"A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's
dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent
to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence."
buckfever
08-25-2008, 10:24 PM
Well, let me say that I don't buy the political pressure theory.
"A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's
dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent
to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence."
Anybody with half a brain understands that this case fit squarely within that law. If it wasn't political pressure, why would a prosecutor even have wasted everyone's time trying to get an indictment for such a sure fire loser?
What I'm starting to take from all this is that prior to July of 06, which I assume is when the Castle Doctrine was instituted here in KY, that this would have been a criminal act?
Not necessarily. Kentuckians still had a right to defend themselves in
their homes prior to the Castle Doctrine. I just don't understand why you think it's so unreasonable that this guy actually believed the drunk guy was trying to commit burglary?
All I know is that if I had done the same thing, I'd be in the pokey.
I don't get this statement. How did the police show this guy preferable treatment and/or why would they have charged you under these same facts?
My neighborhood has some shady characters, so if i catch one of them trying to break in I'll just shoot the SOB in the face because of this.
You don't have to shoot them in the face. You could run away or cower in the closet, and let them help themselves to your stuff or your wife or kids or whatever. It's up to you, but if I saw a shady character trying to break into my house in the middle of the night, I wouldn't lose a whole lot of sleep over it if I did shoo him.
I had a guy that came in through my bedroom window in the middle of the night when I lived in Chicago. Looking back, I can honestly say without any trace of doubt that I would've shot that guy in the face without hesitation if only I would've been smart enough to have a gun handy. And I sure as hell wouldn't apologizing for doing it to people who've never been in that position or understand what it's like.
Georgia Transplant
08-25-2008, 11:19 PM
I'm thinking this happened right at day break, around 6 am. Personally I wouldn't call that the "wee hours". As far as I can tell, murder laws are not based around time tables.
You guys have to remember that this guy was trying to wake up his friends, so he thought, in a neighborhood where the houses all look the same and even share driveways... He was not kicking the door in, and reports suggested that the door was never breached. You could tell by pictures of the door later on that there was no damage. You must also remember that there were others in the house that could have called 911, but did not do so until after the shot was fired although the report said he had been beating on the door for a number of minutes.
I know some of you will sit here and say good for the homeowner. You can blame it on anything you want, booze, ect. Fact of the matter is that 99.9% of us on here would never shoot an unarmed man through locked door. The door opens then it's a different story. Do you guys think you'd feel good about yourself knowing you could have handled the situation differently and a woman would still have her husband and the kids would still have a father?
I would have handled it differently. I would have said honey here's the gun go see who's at the door.:D No seriously I would have went to the door with my glock 9mm and yelled that I have a gun and you are about to get your arse shot, so back away NOW!:mad:
I would have handled it differently. I would have said honey here's the gun go see who's at the door.:D No seriously I would have went to the door with my glock 9mm and yelled that I have a gun and you are about to get your arse shot, so back away NOW!:mad:
....and then what???
How you know this is not exactly what happened and the guy yelled back, "I'm gonna split you and your families throat", just as he kicked the door so hard the hind pins jumped half way out?????
Georgia Transplant
08-25-2008, 11:51 PM
....and then what???
How you know this is not exactly what happened and the guy yelled back, "I'm gonna split you and your families throat", just as he kicked the door so hard the hind pins jumped half way out?????
Well, then I would have popped a cap in that arse. But at least I gave him a chance to save his own life. And by yelling that he might have realized that he was in deed at the wrong house.
Anybody with half a brain understands that this case fit squarely within that law. If it wasn't political pressure, why would a prosecutor even have wasted everyone's time trying to get an indictment for such a sure fire loser?
Not necessarily. Kentuckians still had a right to defend themselves in
their homes prior to the Castle Doctrine. I just don't understand why you think it's so unreasonable that this guy actually believed the drunk guy was trying to commit burglary?
I don't get this statement. How did the police show this guy preferable treatment and/or why would they have charged you under these same facts?
You don't have to shoot them in the face. You could run away or cower in the closet, and let them help themselves to your stuff or your wife or kids or whatever. It's up to you, but if I saw a shady character trying to break into my house in the middle of the night, I wouldn't lose a whole lot of sleep over it if I did shoo him.
I had a guy that came in through my bedroom window in the middle of the night when I lived in Chicago. Looking back, I can honestly say without any trace of doubt that I would've shot that guy in the face without hesitation if only I would've been smart enough to have a gun handy. And I sure as hell wouldn't apologizing for doing it to people who've never been in that position or understand what it's like.
I don't think you're getting me. Was it legal to shoot someone outside of your house, beating on the door prior to July, 12 2006? I'm curious because you said "in" your home prior to the Castle Doctrine. The one fact we do know about this case is that this guy was shot outside the home.
I've had to pull a gun on people several times, 3 times when they were trying to break in. One of our forum members here can tell you all about one of those times, which was a situation identical to this one. I never pulled the trigger or have even came close. I took control of the situation and settled it with my brain, using the gun as a last resort, not the other way around.
All I can say is that I don't really like the law if this is how it works. Like I said, I knock on plenty of doors in an unconventional way each day and sometimes into the night. As the law reads, I could easily be shot and killed by someone who thinks they are about to be burglarized. When I'm lying dead on the porch, the shooter can make up anything they want to.
turkeytalker
08-26-2008, 02:16 PM
Anybody with half a brain understands that this case fit squarely within that law. If it wasn't political pressure, why would a prosecutor even have wasted everyone's time trying to get an indictment for such a sure fire loser?
Not necessarily. Kentuckians still had a right to defend themselves in
their homes prior to the Castle Doctrine. I just don't understand why you think it's so unreasonable that this guy actually believed the drunk guy was trying to commit burglary?
I don't get this statement. How did the police show this guy preferable treatment and/or why would they have charged you under these same facts?
You don't have to shoot them in the face. You could run away or cower in the closet, and let them help themselves to your stuff or your wife or kids or whatever. It's up to you, but if I saw a shady character trying to break into my house in the middle of the night, I wouldn't lose a whole lot of sleep over it if I did shoo him.
I had a guy that came in through my bedroom window in the middle of the night when I lived in Chicago. Looking back, I can honestly say without any trace of doubt that I would've shot that guy in the face without hesitation if only I would've been smart enough to have a gun handy. And I sure as hell wouldn't apologizing for doing it to people who've never been in that position or understand what it's like.
Great post Buckfever, i'll bet even Yotehunter understands it:D!
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.