Originally Posted By: Donkleaps
Armed or not, when you are a criminal and breaking into someones home


No argument up to this point.

Quote:
you should expect that if the resident is home you will probably die.


Couple problems with this.

If this is expectation, then as an armed intruder you have an incentive to shoot to kill if surprised by a homeowner. It turns burglaries into burglaries and homicide. This situation puts homeowners in more danger than a situation where homeowner is known to be unarmed.

Fatally shooting someone in your house. We do not execute for burglary even after criminals were convicted by a jury, what is the justification for letting homeowner do this?

How do you establish criminal intent after intruder was shot dead on sight? It could have been confused drunk neighbor or some other unlikely but valid reason.


Here is scenario where I wouldn't have objected:

Two teenagers break into the house, held at a gun point until police arrives.
Two teenagers break into the house, shot after giving a verbal warning and warning shot and making threatening moves (anything other than surrendering).

My problems with the scenario from the story:

1. At no point intruders were given a chance to respond - they were simply shot.
2. At no point threat to life was clearly established
3. After clearly disabling any possible threat (by shooting them) home owner continued aggression (repeated shooting to finish off)
4. Police and Ambulance were not called for 24h, denying whatever chance to survive was there

Way I see it: Based on 1-2, couple years in jail for reckless use of firearms. Based on 3-4 second degree murder charges.

Last edited by sini; 02/06/13 07:23 AM.
[Linked Image]