Nothing more dangerous than a mother protecting a child

[Ice1]

You're right, that was a little pompous, but this isn't law-school stuff, it's evident literally all over the web that "self-defense" protects you from legal consequences far more than just shooting a robber because they're on your property uninvited. Here's an interesting story from Texas, the state your alias appears to be familiar with the laws for. Check the bolded:

 

 

 

Now if you care to google "robber sues victim", you'll probably get tons of other reasons why you don't want to give anyone ammunition to say that you were in the wrong to shoot an intruder.

 

So while I know H8girljuice loves these internet gotchas, it's absolutely not going to hurt and only help to emphasize that you acted in self-defense and in fear for the safety of you or your children, and not just property defense.

 

Just to clarify, Snohomish County is in Washington State. The Arlington this article is about is not the Arlington in Texas.

 

In Texas, you pretty much get a medal if you kill a burglar in your house. Texas really hates thieves and they get next to no sympathy.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Ice1

[westvirginia]

Just to clarify, Snohomish County is in Washington State. The Arlington this article is about is not the Arlington in Texas.

 

In Texas, you pretty much get a medal if you kill a burglar in your house. Texas really hates thieves and they get next to no sympathy.

 

I was thinking something wasn't right. TX, like FL and several other states has a "castle doctrine", doesn't it?

[Jimmy Neutron]

I was thinking something wasn't right. TX, like FL and several other states has a "castle doctrine", doesn't it?

 

Yep.

[Square]

I was thinking something wasn't right. TX, like FL and several other states has a "castle doctrine", doesn't it?

If I recall Perch, the only thing you get in trouble for in Texas is if you spill your moonshine as you draw down.

[I Like Soup]

A law enforcement friend of mine once told me if someone is trying to break into my house I need to make sure he gets in before I shoot him and I need to make sure I kill him. Dead men tell no lies.

Yeah, but you live in California. You'll be charged if you don't offer up a fine glass of wine to an intruder as he begins to wipe out your family.

[Big Country]

You're right, that was a little pompous, but this isn't law-school stuff, it's evident literally all over the web that "self-defense" protects you from legal consequences far more than just shooting a robber because they're on your property uninvited. Here's an interesting story from Texas, the state your alias appears to be familiar with the laws for. Check the bolded:

 

 

 

Now if you care to google "robber sues victim", you'll probably get tons of other reasons why you don't want to give anyone ammunition to say that you were in the wrong to shoot an intruder.

 

So while I know H8girljuice loves these internet gotchas, it's absolutely not going to hurt and only help to emphasize that you acted in self-defense and in fear for the safety of you or your children, and not just property defense.

 

 

In addition to not being Texas, I really don;t think this particular article does much on your stance about in hhome protection. In the case you quoted, the person went out looking for the burglar and then shot him in the back. Very different than shooting someone that has broken into your home, is currently in your home, and is a threat to you and your family.

[delusions of grandeur]

In addition to not being Texas, I really don;t think this particular article does much on your stance about in hhome protection. In the case you quoted, the person went out looking for the burglar and then shot him in the back. Very different than shooting someone that has broken into your home, is currently in your home, and is a threat to you and your family.

Fair enough, I didn't read that loose example too closely (but you can look up "robber sues victim" for better examples), but thankfully Furd came in and clarified the stance. My only point is that no matter where you live, you're covered legally far better by using "self defense" with fear for personal safety (rather than home protection) as a stated reason. It covers you far better legally if you're unsure to what degree you can defend your home, though I will say that Furd does make the even better point that you should really know the laws anyway.

 

But jsut take the advice for what it's worth, because I didn't come in here to nitpick. Assuming you can legally have a gun and the law allows for "self defense" like most states, then it's certainly not going to hurt you and can only help, should you find yourself in that tough situation of having to pull a trigger.

[Perchoutofwater]

Texas Castle Law

 

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

 

SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:

 

(4) “Habitation” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

 

(5) “Vehicle” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

 

SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:

 

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (, a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

 

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

 

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

 

( unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

 

© was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

 

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

 

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

 

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

 

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

 

SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:

 

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

 

(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

 

(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and

 

[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

 

(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

 

( to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

 

( The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

 

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

 

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

 

( unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

 

© was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(;

 

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

 

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].

 

© A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

 

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection © reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

 

SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

 

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [it is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].

 

SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.

 

( Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

 

SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

Handgun ownership: unrestricted, no permit or license required

 

Rifle and Shotgun ownership: unrestricted, no permit or license required

 

Semi-automatic "assault weapon" ownership: unrestricted, no permit or license required

 

Machine Gun Ownership: no state restrictions, compliance with federal law only

 

Firearm law uniformity: preemption statute, firearm laws uniform throughout state

 

Concealed carry: licenses granted on a "shall issue" basis; reciprocity available for nonresidents with carry permits from certain other states

 

If you enter my house with out my permission I can kill you, and there is no criminal or civil liability on my part.

[TripleW64]

These guys were banging on her door for quite some time trying to get inside. It doesn't take a law degree or a full understanding of the local law to know these punks aren't the welcome wagon coming by with a knife checking to see if this new widow and her infant are gonna be ok living but themselves. And this was the second time in just a few days that the guy had come to her door. She was very fortunate to have the weapon because the headline would have been very different. Now, at the age of 18, she just have to deal with the mental trauma of losing her husband to cancer and then killing someone.

 

In a very interesting twist, the dead guy's accomplice ran away after the shot was fired is now being charged with first-degree murder.

 

Charges

Authorities don't plan to file charges against an 18-year-old Oklahoma widow who fatally shot a New Year's Eve intruder at her house while she had a 911 dispatcher on the phone.

 

However, the intruder's alleged accomplice has been charged with murder in connection with the death.

 

Sarah McKinley was in her mobile home with her 3-month-old son on New Year's Eve in Blanchard, Okla., when Justin Martin, 24, broke in with a large hunting knife, NBC station KFOR reported.

 

When she asked if she was allowed to shoot the intruder if he broke through the door, a 911 operator told her, "Well, you have to do whatever you can do to protect yourself ... I can't tell you that you can do that but you do what you have to do to protect your baby."

 

Oklahoma law allows the use of deadly force against intruders, and prosecutors said McKinley clearly acted in self-defense. According to court documents, Martin was holding a knife when he died.

 

"Our initial review of the case doesn't indicate she violated the law in any way," Assistant District Attorney James Walters told The Oklahoman newspaper.

 

Prosecutors have charged his alleged accomplice, 29-year-old Dustin Louis Stewart, with first-degree murder. According to authorities, Stewart was with Martin but ran away from McKinley's home after hearing the gunshots.

 

"When you're engaged in a crime such as first-degree burglary and a death results from the events of that crime, you're subject to prosecution for it," Walters said.

[Ditkaless Wonders]

21 minutes she was on the phone with 911 so we can assume that the cops had not responded for nearly 30 minutes. I don't really know much about what is considered noraml response time especially in a city like OK City but 30 minutes seems like a lot. Maybe a quicker response time by police might have saved a life. Obviously the intruder got what he had coming, he knew the risks involved.

 

 

When seconds count the Police are only minutes away.