Originally Posted By: AMC
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
The law frowns upon people shooting people. The moment you plead self defense you have admitted to the crime, and now the burden of proof is on you to explain why you did so. Merely being in your house uninvited is not a good reason, e.g the girl scout selling cookies who steps over the threshold. All states require that you have a bona fide fear for your life or limb, or that of another innocent, and that the shooting be a last resort.
In other words, don’t shoot anyone unless you absolutely, positively have to,
The laws governing self defense are very complicated and vary by state. One solid defense is when a stranger forcibly breaks into your house at night, armed or not. In such a case there is a presumption of bona fide fear. In all other cases, see above.
Tom NJ/VA
Ding, Ding, Ding! We have a winner!
Well said and very accurate, well done sir!
I will add that fear is not enough. There must be a real threat to your life, so real that the 12 on the jury will agree that you had no other choice but to fire your weapon.
Another long, lost and forgotten part to self defense these days is unarmed self defense. If you are serious about defending yourself and your family, you need to learn unarmed self defense. Handicapped or elderly, you get a pass. Many of these big stories involving citizens and police defending themselves and getting into hot water could have been easily prevented with better unarmed self defense training.
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN SELF DEFENSE, AFTER THE EVENT HAS OCCURRED, IS HOW YOU CAN ARTICULATE IN COURT WHY YOU DID WHAT YOU DID.
You may or may not be able to defensibly argue in court about shooting an unarmed person, regardless of where it occurs.
Example 1:
an elderly widow is armed, and shoots an intruder insider her home. She is small, frail, and has been the victim of physical violence previously in her immediate neighborhood. She can tell of how the intruder told her that he was going to "mess her up" and "beat her down" as he walked towards her. In this case, she can reasonably define why she shot the intruder, even though he was unarmed.
Example 2:
a huge, hulking 23 year old male who is a fitness guru shoots an unarmed female who's drunk to a point of poor motor-skills control and lack of balance,and is wearing a bikini so it's obvious she's not hiding nor holding a weapon. She's verbally incoherent as she mistakenly enters his home, believing she's returning to her friend's BBQ party on the bright sunny Saturday. It's going to be difficult for the big homeowner to describe why he had to double-tap the party goer when he could have just physically (easily) controlled her and put her outside the home after calling 911.
Example 3:
a female police officer, of small stature, is pulling over a vehicle suspected as involved in an armed robbery. After the large male driver exits and heads towards her (in defiance of her commands to stay in the car), as she's walking up and he states he's going to "(blank) you up", she could likely reasonably defend having to shoot the person, especially if he furtively would not take his hands out of his pockets, after her continued commands are being ignored, etc ...
Fear, if unfounded and irrational, is not a good reason to kill another person.
Fear, if well founded and reasonable, is a defensible reason to kill another person.
Whether or not that other person is armed is only a contributing condition to the totality of the circumstances, not a sole decision point.
