Friend walked in on a burglary.

[JM Ver. 2.0]

Your stupidity astounds me. Do you read all the words in a post, or are you so transfixed with your sad attempt at being correct or need to be called "sir" that you simply cannot comprehend simple English? "In this instance....." means as it applies to this case--the man that went into the home and encountered an active burglary. He was the occupant of the home.

did you ever consider reading the applicable statute that's been posted here--you know the one that provides immunity from any civil liability for injuries or death from the use of such force?

Again with the name calling, hostility, and anger...

Just give up, bro. You're trying too hard. The heart trouble and blood pressure isn't worth it.

[ChunkyMonkey]

Doesn't change a thing. It's simply not illegal to enter your own home simply because there's an intruder inside whether you believe you might be in danger or not.

It might not be the smartest move from a safety perspective but it just isn't illegal and there is no statute you can cite that will support that position. You might not be doing yourself any favors if you call the police and say, "I just saw a guy go in my house while I was at the neighbor's house across the street. I'm going over to my house to kill the son-of-a-bitch! You better send the cops." But simply entering your home knowing there might be a threat to you or your property inside is not illegal.

I have been trying to stay from the dumb argument LOL... but I agree with Bailey. I posted a break in thread almost 2 years ago. In that time, a meth head who was evicted broke back into the rental property. The neighbor called me, I called 911, told them I am armed and I am checking out the property. I was told by dispatch, not to, but I insisted as I thought he fled already. Dispatch told me it was ultimately my choice, but keep clear of the DPD. Dispatch asked for my description and detail of where about I was and hang up. Well DPD must be real busy that night, one officer showed up 45 min later.

After clearing the house, he came back out and chat with me. He was in a such hurry that he never asked for my ID or even my name. But I did get to ask him, what would have happened if I confronted the guy and I am forced to defend myself (sort of trick question). His answer was short "Meth head vs property owner? Property owner wins, just dont talk to anyone but your lawyer. With that, he took off to the next call.

[Cameron]

I simply take exception to people making unqualified (layman's interpretation) blanket statements that make no sense and vaguely hint at some ethereal qualifications that give them some inside knowledge of the law... do any of that and you get a well deserved "twit" label. Then when asked to back up your unqualified blanket statement with any proof at all, you just ignore it, this then is getting you close to earning the "fuckwit" label...

Let's be very clear: JM and brutal assert that entering your own home, while knowing that LE have been notified of a potential intruder would mean you no longer are afford any protection from prosecution under state law 18-1-704.5. I believe that both JM and brutal as misinformed (or more likely completely uninformed) and simply request that they provide ANY evidence that gives some credibility to their claims, so in response they both provide....... (crickets chirping)..... absolutely nothing.

Please give us something so no one here calls you a fuckwit.

Cameron

[JM Ver. 2.0]

I simply take exception to people making unqualified (layman's interpretation) blanket statements that make no sense and vaguely hint at some ethereal qualifications that give them some inside knowledge of the law... do any of that and you get a well deserved "twit" label. Then when asked to back up your unqualified blanket statement with any proof at all, you just ignore it, this then is getting you close to earning the "fuckwit" label...

Let's be very clear: JM and brutal assert that entering your own home, while knowing that LE have been notified of a potential intruder would mean you no longer are afford any protection from prosecution under state law 18-1-704.5. I believe that both JM and brutal as misinformed (or more likely completely uninformed) and simply request that they provide ANY evidence that gives some credibility to their claims, so in response they both provide....... (crickets chirping)..... absolutely nothing.

Please give us something so no one here calls you a fuckwit.

Cameron

As soon as I get an email back from the people that matter, the DAs that would be charging you, I'll post it here.

Until then you can keep the name calling to yourself. No one likes a name caller.

[spqrzilla]

JM ver 2.0, you continue to make over generalizations that are silly and wrong.

[airborneranger]

JM ver 2.0, you continue to make over generalizations that are silly and wrong.

In the Army, we call that a "Barracks Lawyer". He claims to knows everything about everything, but in the end only knows jack and shit. I guess all of that knowledge comes from osmosis because last time I checked he was neither a cop or a lawyer.

Please call your DA or your detective for their "opinion" on the situation. Then, I will call my defense attorney and post his opinion. In the end, everyone will be arguing and no one is going to call you sir.

[brutal]

You also cannot provoke the intruder's threat of deadly force. By entering the home knowing there are intruders, you are provoking the intruder.

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said "surprised." I said "knowingly."

Different situation. And "surprise" does not necessarily mean threat, although a shoot in that situation would more likely be justified.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

I simply take exception to people making unqualified (layman's interpretation) blanket statements that make no sense and vaguely hint at some ethereal qualifications that give them some inside knowledge of the law... do any of that and you get a well deserved "twit" label. Then when asked to back up your unqualified blanket statement with any proof at all, you just ignore it, this then is getting you close to earning the "fuckwit" label...

Let's be very clear: JM and brutal assert that entering your own home, while knowing that LE have been notified of a potential intruder would mean you no longer are afford any protection from prosecution under state law 18-1-704.5. I believe that both JM and brutal as misinformed (or more likely completely uninformed) and simply request that they provide ANY evidence that gives some credibility to their claims, so in response they both provide....... (crickets chirping)..... absolutely nothing.

Please give us something so no one here calls you a fuckwit.

Cameron

I never asserted what you claim. Read my words above. My opinion is that if you knowingly inject yourself into THIS situation where you provoke the intruder's threat of deadly force against you, having been informed by a third party, and having the police dispatched, you are going to have a problem with a prosecuting DA if you end said intruder. No amount of childish name calling can disuade my opinion. Whether it's right or wrong, it's my opinion and I'll stand by it until I see proof positive otherwise.

[davsel]

I never asserted what you claim. Read my words above. My opinion is that if you knowingly inject yourself into THIS situation where you provoke the intruder's threat of deadly force against you, having been informed by a third party, and having the police dispatched, you are going to have a problem with a prosecuting DA if you end said intruder. No amount of childish name calling can disuade my opinion. Whether it's right or wrong, it's my opinion and I'll stand by it until I see proof positive otherwise.

Entering my own home is somehow seen as provoking an intruder?
Please explain.

[Ronin13]

Entering my own home is somehow seen as provoking an intruder?
Please explain.

That's what I was thinking... But it's YOUR house! So let's all go Chicago style and flip things around- now those law breaking intruders are victims forced to feed upon the aid of others, and us honest, gun owning folk that just want to live safely need to be prosecuted for going into our own homes and may encounter these "victims."

[JM Ver. 2.0]

That's what I was thinking... But it's YOUR house! So let's all go Chicago style and flip things around- now those law breaking intruders are victims forced to feed upon the aid of others, and us honest, gun owning folk that just want to live safely need to be prosecuted for going into our own homes and may encounter these "victims."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...returned-fire/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=474025&in_page_id=1770

http://whostheass.com/2012/09/true-story-burglar-falls-through-a-roof-and-sues/



Who's the victim now?

This is the problem with all of you saying to shoot the guys...