This could happen to any of us even without a gun.

Last night I watched a good, but disturbing movie in which Joe Homeowner surprises a burglar in his child’s bedroom while his child is asleep in bed. Joe Homeowner did not have the evil gun but did pick up a baseball bat and enraged attacks the bugler. He chases him outside and kills him in the front yard.
Now this sounds more like a home invasion to me but I digress. Anyway poor Joe Homeowner is arrested and charged with second degree murder. After weeks in jail with no bond the DA offers a deal. He can face a jury trial on the murder charge or plead guilty to manslaughter with a three year sentence and credit for time served. His lawyer advised him to accept the deal, which he reluctantly does and is sent to prison.
At any rate I think this is what happened, Amanda was doing something naughty at the time, which I am not going into but the point is…Would you have taken the deal?
I would not have. This is a conservative area and no jury here would find a homeowner guilty, but your mileage may vary.


:grr:

Murder one REQUIRES premeditation which can in no way be established with a burglar, unless it can be shown that the homeowner had foreknowledge that the burglar was going to be there and laid out weapons and his plan ahead of time, it's not murder one.

They usually don't kill with first strike.

If you do kill the attacker it's usually because you hit him a bunch of times and that can be used against you.

It's easy for one shot from a pistol or shotgun to kill an intruder so that can't be used against you.

Even multiple shots with a pistol is easy to justify since "pull the trigger until he's down" is a common accepted tactic and it only takes a couple of seconds, too short a time to be called "cold blooded murder."

A baseball bat to the head can easily kill in one strike. Also, don't underestimate the adrenaline factor: someone in a panic state could very easily make two, three, four swings before snapping out of it.

Now in the scenario outlined by the OP, the homeowner IS culpable because he pursued the intruder when the intruder attempted to retreat. You can't legally shoot--or club--someone who's fleeing even if they broke into your house or committed another crime. It might not be murder, but it's not legal either.

Justifiable homicide all the way!

One day I'm going to murder the bugler
One day they're going to find him dead!
And then I'll get the other pup
The one that wakes the bugler up
And spend the rest of my life in bed

:rofl: :thumbsup:

Thank you, amazing how much difference one little letter can make.
:dunce: :wow: :hide: :popcorn: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

That whoosh was that a going right over my blond head, thank you. This was funny.

:loveya: :rofl:

but as the county sheriff told him when he took concealed class that shooting them or killing them once they left the house is a sticking point.

He said also "If someone does come into your house and you shoot them more than once and if that second bullet went through the floor that means you shot him again after he was down and no longer a threat"

Most people around here hunt and just about everybody has a gun..we are in rural NC with a variety of critters that can kill your chickens or other stock. Rabies is a big danger out here in the sticks. We put in an electric fence to contain our dogs, because one of them likes to chase deer and chickens and I don't want possibly rabid raccoons or opossum up in my yard and more so in our veggie gardens.

"Amanda" would likely have said something if her father was beating her boyfriend to death.

Little Amanda just happened to have a baseball bat handy, did she? :eyes:

I don't care where you live, if you chased an unarmed "someone" out into your front yard (they are running away from you) and you crush their skull with a baseball bat, you're going to prison.

I think you may need to go and read the post again. Amanda is eighteen and is my girlfriend and was not in the movie. But in this part of the world if anyone enters your home while its occupied it is considered a home invasion. Any home invader will find no compassion here.
:hi:

Could you chase him down the street and kill him there? Into his house? If you're a little tired could you find him tomorrow and bash his head in then?

If so, please tell me where you are, I haven't heard of this place before.

What would you do if you went into your child’s bedroom to say goodnight and found a stranger? In the movie the homeowner was told, “you should have just dialed 911.”
And have you ever been in the South? Things are handled different here I expect then where you live.
:dilemma:

Am I or my child in danger?
Is it really a stranger, or my wife looking for her cellphone in the dark?
Is it my 16-year-old daughter's boyfriend, who sneaked in through the window?
Is the stranger armed?
Am I armed?

A lot of information to gather very quickly, but believe me it's going to happen before I start beating on someone with a baseball bat. And once they're in the yard and not a threat? There isn't a law in the land (that includes the South) that authorizes murder for B&E or burglary.

Yeah, I guess I wasn’t thinking really about the law. Southern people are sometimes let’s just say emotional. Sometimes we act before we think. Hence the scenario placing a weapon in the intruders hands and swearing he was attacking you with it. And in the end it would come down to what the jury would decide and if you were a “good republican” you would walk.
:yoiks:

At what point do you cease self-defense and start assaulting someone?

wtf asked a good question in that if you chase someone out of your house, then they are no longer a threat and you are now on the offensive. If beating them to death in the front yard is ok, then why is it not ok if you chase them down the street, or to their house, or rest up and go get them in the morning?

At what point does self-defense turn into assault?

self-defense can easily turn into assault, and you can get be held liable.

If someone comes up to you, out of the blue, and punches you in the mouth - you are *NOT* legally entitled to beat the holy crap of out him. It may feel good, but kicking him when he's rolled up in a ball on the ground may end up costing you a lot of money.

If you provoke your attacker verbally, you can also seriously weaken a subsequent plea of self-defense. Good to know these things before the need arises.

but once he has willfully invaded the sanctity of your home, he should find no safe refuge anywhere on the planet Earth, after any length of time, short of a prison cell or maybe the local place of worship.

but that's ok. That's why we have them, so everyone doesn't get to make up their own version.

There should be "no safe refuge anywhere on the planet Earth, after any length of time, short of a prison cell" (not sure why a place of worship would be a sanctuary, but I digress), however, it is not the homeowners place to exact that revenge or justice.

The point being made here is that we ARE entitled to reasonable self-defense, but at some point, self-defense stops being self-defense and becomes assault. I would think that most reasonable people may agree that once an intruder/attacker has stopped intruding/attacking, then you no longer have cause for self-defense.

And it certainly does stop being self-defense, at least in an immediate sense. I suppose I've got a blind spot on the subject, as I draw a distinction between a homeowner and the target of a violent home invasion. Nor was I advocating home invasion victims actually follow through with such a scenario. I'm aware of the law and if I were in that situation, I'd adhere to it to the best of my ability. I just wish the law were designed to protect the victim, rather than the criminal.

EDIT: Oh yeah, "place of worship" was a tongue-in-cheek reference to the old English right of asylum. I have a bad habit of publicly making jokes only I'm likely to get.

Even the law is pretty clear about the use of deadly force being permissible up until the aggressor's attack is stopped or he flees.

After the cold hard light of retrospection is shined on the incident, it might be clear to all the jail-house lawyers that the enraged Dad beating the burglar to death might be excessive. Maybe manslaughter, maybe murder two, maybe a no bill if the prosecutor doesn't convince a grand jury.

A trial can truly be a crap shoot. All it takes is one juror who thinks the dearly departed deserved what he got. The dilemma faced by the accused is not far-fetched.

I had ball bats, gloves, in my room as a kid. A couple of my tomboy sisters did too! I suppose nowadays it'd be hard to clobber someone with a Wii or an iPod.

...defined in the law.

The laws vary considerably from state to state. The scenario as described could be billable as second degree murder in California, but it could be reduced to voluntary manslaughter because it occurred in the heat of passion.

I think it was situated in California and the name of the movie was Felon.

:patriot:

I think the homeowner would have been okay up until the point that the guy was down, or was outside.

I would stand trial on 2nd degree murder and see if the jury will convict. Which is likely, given the hypothetical action is, in fact, 2nd degree murder. (Unless the guy has given some reason for you to be afraid, like yelling 'I'M GONNA GET MY GUN FROM MY CAR AND COME BACK AND KILL YOU' or something)

Yeah, that’s a good point. I have heard anecdotes of cops carrying throw down guns. Maybe it would have been possible in this hypothetical situation to have the homeowner place a knife or screwdriver in his possession before anyone arrived at the incident. I think that this would be the equivalent to the urban legend of dragging someone back inside.

:think:

I can't help but think that if it was legal to do this, there might actually be less crime, as it would be a deterent to criminals. On the other hand, it would seem to require a difficult level of proof (video of the home-entry?) to ensure that it wouldn't be abused to justify/camaflouge otherwise criminal actions by the alledged victim. And on the gripping hand, it might also encourage more use of lethal force by the forced-entry criminal, as a means to ensure they get what they want at the least personal risk.

Hypothesis wrapped in enigma, surrounded by conundrum. Oh my.

Now, I'll state beforehand that I consider residential burglars to be utter scum. The emotional trauma and sense of being violated they inflict approaches that of rape, and they have one of the highest rates of re-offense of any class of criminal, and while it's not very liberal of me, I will not shed a tear for any one of them who sustains permanent injury up to and including death at the hands of a victim.

Even in jurisdictions with a Castle Doctrine law, the use of lethal force by a private citizen is permissible only to avert an imminent threat of death or permanent injury to an innocent. Once the aggressor flees, you're supposed to let him go, as he no longer presents a threat to you.

That's all very nice in theory, but in practice, if you let the guy get away, the chances of his being apprehended are not encouraging, and since the guy knows where you live, there is a very real possibility he may come seeking what he considers payback (since it takes an overdeveloped sense of entitlement to be a burglar in the first place), and this time, he'll be better prepared. In the lingo of military theory, at the point that you've brought sufficient force to bear to prompt the aggressor to flee, you hold the initiative; i.e., this is the best opportunity you can count on ever having to impose your will on him. Once you let him get away, you give up the initiative, and thus a large part of control over future developments.

In layman's terms, what it boils down to is that the moment you have the fucker on the run is the best chance you'll ever have to make sure the SOB will not be in a position to pose a threat to you and yours again, at least for the foreseeable future. At a minimum, you want to subdue the guy and hold him for the cops. But in this context, some of us may recall the case of Munir Hussain, of High Wycombe, England, who chased and down and beat one of three burglars who had threatened the lives of his family and himself, and used a cricket bat to beat the guy hard enough to inflict permanent brain damage. Now, from a detached perspective, we might think Mr. Hussain used an excessive amount of force, but I recall that I speculated at the time that Mr. Hussain might have been motivated at least in part by a lack of trust in the English criminal justice system to take the guy off the street. Which would have been entirely justified, given that the guy he beat senseless had over 50 prior convictions and was under a "supervision order" at the time. As I also remarked, vigilantism tends to be a response to the criminal justice system failing to do its job to the satisfaction of the citizenry, and Mr. Hussain may have intended to make the burglar too scared to try to retaliate, as a safeguard against the possibility of the court turning him loose again.

I certainly think that public prosecutors and judges could worse than to acknowledge that these are considerations for someone defending his home and his loved ones against a burglar/home invader, even if these considerations aren't made consciously. Justice isn't simply slavish adherence to the latter of the law.