Topic: Some People DON'T Have A CLUE!

[bill440cars]

      I don't remember the specifics but here's the jest of it.

         Some woman drove 2 teenage boys to a residence. The boys tried to rob the place, the owner came out shooting, the boys jumped back in the car and they took off. Now, the kicker is, there was a 1year old baby girl in THAT car. She was hit by a bullet fired by the owner of the home and the baby later died. NOW, there is talk of the possibility of the, SO CALLED, Mother of that baby filing charges asgainst the guy who was trying to protect his home! I CAN'T believe this! The MOTHER PUT that child in danger AND contributed to the 2 teenage boys! How TOALLY IGNORANT can people BE? 

[cb650]

Yes sounds pretty ridicules.   Give it a little while and we'll hear how wrong we are.

[Inigo Montoya]

Problem here is that while in his home, the owner could shoot, but if he followed the boys out and shot, then he is screwed.
most castle laws require the shooting to occur inside the home. If the guy WAS outside his home, then I would probably agree with lightened criminal charges on the man, along with criminal charges on the mother and the boys.

After all, once the boys were out of the house, then they were running away and then it does become murder and not self defense. obviously some here will disagree but if you check most laws, you cant shoot at people ON your property, only if they enter your dwelling. Whether or not this includes a garage, I would think so but you never know.

[Steve F]

The cops will probably charge the owner of the house with 2nd degree murder since he was already out of his house and shooting.  Had he stayed IN the house, he could probably get away with self defense plea and guarding against home invasion.
EDIT: Same reply at the same time?

[MCRider]

Yes the lines are clear. I'm an aggressive advocate of self defense, but if he shot at the car, presumably on a public street, and/or the boys were retreating, use of lethal force is not permitted. He goofed.

Owners of guns must know the rules.

[bill440cars]

      I see what you all are saying. I forgot to mention too that they 2 boys were arrested as well. Still, it seems to me that the mother should get SOMETHING for "Child Endangerment", not to mention that SHE drove the boys there for the purpose of robbery.

      BTW, I appreciate the constructive input here.

      Yeah, I didn't honk about the fact of the limits of what is legal, in a case like this. I CAN see where the home owner would be rattled enough to get carried away too! It's Too Bad that it has to come to this, with people trying to protect what is rightfully theirs though!


                             Thanks for the input, Bill

[Inigo Montoya]

Thats why I figure there should be charges all around. The mother should get accessory to a crime, child endangerment, & manslaughter 1st degree.
I guess I am not versed enough in the criminal system(thats a good thing right!) to go into any more detail than that.

[benly- ben]

The Tale Is Wagging The Dog!!!

[BobbyR]

      I see what you all are saying. I forgot to mention too that they 2 boys were arrested as well. Still, it seems to me that the mother should get SOMETHING for "Child Endangerment", not to mention that SHE drove the boys there for the purpose of robbery.

      BTW, I appreciate the constructive input here.

      Yeah, I didn't honk about the fact of the limits of what is legal, in a case like this. I CAN see where the home owner would be rattled enough to get carried away too! It's Too Bad that it has to come to this, with people trying to protect what is rightfully theirs though!


                             Thanks for the input, Bill

She can be charged with conspiracy and several other charges.

The laws are pretty uniform. While he was being robbed,, he may have felt he was in danger for his life. Once they got outside, he had been robbed and now we go from defense to revenge. You are not legally allowed revenge.

What these knuckleheads have to get through their heads is that this is not the old west. They also don't realize before it is too late is that taking lives is not easy after the fact and living with that can be very difficult. 

[bill440cars]

Thats why I figure there should be charges all around. The mother should get accessory to a crime, child endangerment, & manslaughter 1st degree.
I guess I am not versed enough in the criminal system(thats a good thing right!) to go into any more detail than that.

        Yeah, I agree. It IS a shame that it had to happen in the first place. I've Never been in THAT position myself. Oh  I have been robbed before, but didn't know it had happened til after the fact. I can only imagine how it must have felt to have go through something like that.

[bill440cars]

      I see what you all are saying. I forgot to mention too that they 2 boys were arrested as well. Still, it seems to me that the mother should get SOMETHING for "Child Endangerment", not to mention that SHE drove the boys there for the purpose of robbery.

      BTW, I appreciate the constructive input here.

      Yeah, I didn't honk about the fact of the limits of what is legal, in a case like this. I CAN see where the home owner would be rattled enough to get carried away too! It's Too Bad that it has to come to this, with people trying to protect what is rightfully theirs though!


                             Thanks for the input, Bill

She can be charged with conspiracy and several other charges.

The laws are pretty uniform. While he was being robbed,, he may have felt he was in danger for his life. Once they got outside, he had been robbed and now we go from defense to revenge. You are not legally allowed revenge.

What these knuckleheads have to get through their heads is that this is not the old west. They also don't realize before it is too late is that taking lives is not easy after the fact and living with that can be very difficult. 

           Yeah, I knew I would get some legal input from you, Bobby and I appreciate that. Besides the home owner, the (so called) mother of the baby should be really giving HERSELF the going over for HER involvement of the WHOLE thing! I just wonder IF the woman even admits to herself, that IF she'd not BEEN THERE, none of this would have happened? The baby would have been alive and the boys wouldn't have been jailed for THAT crime (maybe others, but not that one.

[edbikerii]

Isn't there also a charge for the mother and the boys for murder during the commission of a felony?

Certainly a case could be made that they caused the death of the child by committing the felony in the first place.

[TwoTired]

Actually a gun owner is allowed to give chase.  But, you have to prove that it was a reasonable assumption that the original assailants were certain to return when conditions were more in their favor, or with reinforcements, to resume a life threatening attack.  Then it is a continuation of self protection.

Still, the owner failed at least one of the 4 rules of gun safety.

4. Be sure of your target AND what is beyond it.

[kghost]

Actually a gun owner is allowed to give chase.  But, you have to prove that it was a reasonable assumption that the original assailants were certain to return when conditions were more in their favor, or with reinforcements, to resume a life threatening attack.  Then it is a continuation of self protection.

Still, the owner failed at least one of the 4 rules of gun safety.

4. Be sure of your target AND what is beyond it.

Agree with Lloyd....Its not been mentioned if the fleeing boys were shooting back at the home owner.

Running away while still firing....I believe I'd keep shooting.

Sad a Baby was killed.

[Inigo Montoya]

Again, that depends on your state though. I doubt many states allow a person to keep firing once the intruder is out of your home and in any case, I would be pretty sure even if it WAS allowed under certain circumstances, it would be impossible to defend in this case.

[Operator]

Just throwing this out there, In my opinion, there should be some sort of education of the law before someone is allowed to own a firearm. I know here, north of the border you must take a safety course to own long guns, and then a separate one for restricted weapons (handguns) and both of the courses integrate safety as well as education on the laws surrounding gun ownership and usage.

my 2 cents

[bill440cars]

       I don't remember if they were firing back or not. I'll have to see if I can get a link to it.

[ColinMc]

What if his neighbor was outside, and a stray bullet he was firing hit and killed his neighbor.

Serious charges should be made all around at this group of people. The guy getting robbed sounds just as stupid as the ones robbing him.

EDIT: That's why a chainsaw or sword is my weapon of choice...better if the robbers were zombies though...then a Lobotomizer of course (Lobo for short)

[Markcb750]

What if his neighbor was outside, and a stray bullet he was firing hit and killed his neighbor.

Serious charges should be made all around at this group of people. The guy getting robbed sounds just as stupid as the ones robbing him.

+1


The first thing I learned...Make sure of your target and what is behind it.  My Uncle would snatch our 22's away for long time if he saw us being careless.


Stupid is as stupid does.

[BobbyR]

Actually a gun owner is allowed to give chase.  But, you have to prove that it was a reasonable assumption that the original assailants were certain to return when conditions were more in their favor, or with reinforcements, to resume a life threatening attack.  Then it is a continuation of self protection.

Still, the owner failed at least one of the 4 rules of gun safety.

4. Be sure of your target AND what is beyond it.

Actually that was a case in your home State some years back, which was interesting. Generally in most instances when the perp flees the scene, you are not allowed to continue using deadly force. Now, if I were on a Jury I would hang them up by voting not guilty on the homeowner, my personal feelings of right and wrong and the Law are two different things. I have been discharged from Jury Duty several times since I informed them I want to know why someone did something not the letter of the Law. One Judge called me an Anarchist.

As a former PO I needed to answer the questions on physical force also called Article 15 correctly year after year. Having said that, I advise everyone I know and you folks too, that killing someone is quite easy in the heat of the moment. Sometimes it is very hard after the fact and should never be taken lightly. The Law may let you off, but your head may not. You may think you know how you would feel, but you may be wrong.   

[TwoTired]

Just throwing this out there, In my opinion, there should be some sort of education of the law before someone is allowed to own a firearm. I know here, north of the border you must take a safety course to own long guns, and then a separate one for restricted weapons (handguns) and both of the courses integrate safety as well as education on the laws surrounding gun ownership and usage.

my 2 cents

In the US, ignorance of the law is not an accepted defense.  And you can buy a number of dangerous things without required knowledge of all laws which pertain to it.
EG. can you get a driver's license if you miss some questions on the test?
Do you know that mixing bleach and ammonia and releasing it in a crowd is illegal?
Do you know all the Arson laws before you are allowed to purchase gasoline?

But, "allowed to own a firearm" means the individual has no right to own one, and possibly no right to self defense.  If you are comfortable with that then stay where you are.
What you are suggesting is restricting gun ownership so it is a privilege and not a right.  Some governments do not trust their populace with guns.  Some governments believe people are guilty until proven innocent. (Some forums do, too, without knowing all the facts in matter.)  
Some like to speculate the real law based on their own opinions.  I just hope you find a judge/legal system that agrees with such opinions.

In principle, the U.S. persons are free to choose between evil deeds and good deeds.  The laws are usually created to punish the evil doers after the fact, and act as a deterrent under threat of punishment.  There is always a choice for the individual, which many governments wish to remove from the individual.

I posture that if one actually succeeds in removing all evil deeds, good deeds will also be prevented.

In actuality, governments will be the sole provider of evil deeds, if successfully removing evil deeds from the general populace.  As, the general populace won't have any say in the matter because they are all evil if not a part of or in approval of their controlling government.

[Inigo Montoya]

Some governments believe people are guilty until proven innocent. (Some forums do, too, without knowing all the facts in matter.)

I doubt ANYONE is not guilty of this. Anyone. As for the facts of the story, considering how many times courts do not have all the facts and still prosecute cases, you work with what you have.

[TwoTired]

Actually a gun owner is allowed to give chase.  But, you have to prove that it was a reasonable assumption that the original assailants were certain to return when conditions were more in their favor, or with reinforcements, to resume a life threatening attack.  Then it is a continuation of self protection.

Actually that was a case in your home State some years back, which was interesting.

OK.  But I learned that fact from Massad Ayoob in his book, "In The Gravest Extreme", which I believe every gun owner who plans to use it isn sellf defence should read, for their own sake.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massad_Ayoob

Generally in most instances when the perp flees the scene, you are not allowed to continue using deadly force. Now, if I were on a Jury I would hang them up by voting not guilty on the homeowner, my personal feelings of right and wrong and the Law are two different things.

Agreed.

If they are escaping with my TV. I'll let them go.  If they escaping with one of my guns, however....

I have been discharged from Jury Duty several times since I informed them I want to know why someone did something not the letter of the Law. One Judge called me an Anarchist.

I have always been "Thanked and Excused" from jury duty after telling them I couldn't convict someone of a breaking a law I thought was unjust.  It is a power both judges and lawyers don't want jurors to know they have.  Jurors get to judge both the law AND the defendant.

As a former PO I needed to answer the questions on physical force also called Article 15 correctly year after year. Having said that, I advise everyone I know and you folks too, that killing someone is quite easy in the heat of the moment. Sometimes it is very hard after the fact and should never be taken lightly. The Law may let you off, but your head may not. You may think you know how you would feel, but you may be wrong.    

In general, if it is a righteous and just shooting, the shooter will always have some sort of emotional trauma, perhaps even severe, no matter how evil and detestable the perp was.
Anyone who predicts otherwise is just spouting bravado.

[bill440cars]

       Sorry, I still haven't located the story yet. Sometimes, I'm not too good at that. To give you an idea, I found that an ex employee of where I worked at Fort Chaffee, died last Monday and I didn't know anything about it. Soon as I figure out where it is, I'll try to get it posted.
    

[Rocking-M]

I have always been "Thanked and Excused" from jury duty after telling them I couldn't convict someone of a breaking a law I thought was unjust.  It is a power both judges and lawyers don't want jurors to know they have.  Jurors get to judge both the law AND the defendant.

nope, they don't want you to know this, and in fact will tell you the Supremes ruled other wise (I can't remember the case) but,
the Surpremes were wrong. Jurors don't have to give a reason for their verdict and can in fact judge the law and the defendant.
For that reason I've not been on jury duty in the past 18 years. I was foreman on that one and pretty much told the folks on the
jury it was our decision as to justice. They went with me on it. I can be pretty persuasive when I get that wild eyed look.

As a former PO I needed to answer the questions on physical force also called Article 15 correctly year after year. Having said that, I advise everyone I know and you folks too, that killing someone is quite easy in the heat of the moment. Sometimes it is very hard after the fact and should never be taken lightly. The Law may let you off, but your head may not. You may think you know how you would feel, but you may be wrong.    

Yep, I'd prefer to never cross that bridge.