OrionTheWolf
Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006 Status: offline
|
You say mere property, I said breaking into my home. There is a difference, and it is huge. The other things is that some states do have different requirements of what you can and cannot do, from a citizens arrest perspective, depending upon whether they are committing a felony or not. The other is that in judicial decisions on the matter, when the word felon is used "such as fleeing felon" it has an extreme impact upon what is reasonable to fear or not. If the news broadcast that a dangerous fleeing felon is in your area, and suddenly someone kicks in your back door, and you shoot them, the word felon does have a huge impact. I am sorry but I am not going to ask an instructor anything, I would rather ask a practicing criminal attorney that has handle those types of cases. There have been several cases recently here in Georgia where the perpetrator was shot just for breaking into the house, and no charges were filed against the home owner. I would rather talk about the application of things in the real world and not in the classroom. Thanks for the warning though, but I would rather not hesitate when the door of the house gets kicked in. I would rather live to regret it than not. Orion quote:
ORIGINAL: Alumbrado The common understanding of the castle doctrine is pretty far off base, thanks to really crappy news articles on the subjet I suspect. These laws do not remove the requirement that one show that they were reasonably in fear for their life, they extend it as a given, and apply it to being at home when a burglar breaks into that home. You still cannot use deadly force to keep your neighbor's car from being broken into for example. And felony vs. misdemanor has nothing to do with it, apparently also a misreading of the concept of using deadly force against a 'fleeing felon', which in reality has to be provable to a jury as a clear and imminent danger to the life of others. It is easy to pick a few words from the newspaper or Google, and build up an opinion. The trick is getting a jury to buy your logic after you shoot that trespasser for riding his tricycle on your lawn.... Seriously, if anyone doesn't grasp that the Garner ruling sets the standard, take a class and get the instructor/professor to break it down for you, instead of buying into the notion that you can shoot someone over mere property... might save a lot of grief later.
_____________________________
When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."
|