was this shooting justified?

[RampantAndroid]

Having the racist spidey on ignore isn't of any value if you keep quoting him.

Sorry, but I'm going to keep doing it to drive the point home: he's a lunatic who reflects poorly on other gun owners (something readily apparent BEFORE this thread) and were it in my power I would strip him of his firearm privileges.

Yes I have. Once I order you to leave and you do not I can draw.

That's use of force and allowed. If you do not leave, you are now unlawfully in my home. This exact scenario is covered in my state. If you so much as flinch or threaten I can shoot.

Hot states laws are very different than mine.

503.055 Use of defensive force regarding dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle --Exceptions.


(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:


(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and


(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

All laws I see in KY refer to 503.055. In KY, all I see with regards to force are: You may fire to prevent someone evicting you unlawfully, stealing, using force against you in a felony act, committing arson, trying to rape you...so on and so forth. Nowhere in these laws do I see any reference to being able to fire upon someone who is in your home but has not given you reason to fear for your life.

I've not looked, but I might later tonight - I seem to remember in WA pointing a gun at someone without reason is alone a felony offense.

Put simply, you pointed to a subsection of KY laws that ONLY covered the use of NONLETHAL FORCE. I had to quote the section on lethal force FOR YOU. So either you're just sloppy, or you actually thought that allowable force equated to lethal force (and thus clearly didn't read the entire section of KY law.)

There's a difference here: if someone happens to be on your lawn letting their dog crap, you cannot shoot them. There's no reasonable fear for your life. But hey, you're anything but reasonable it seems.

 

[Turin39789]

Sorry, but I'm going to keep doing it to drive the point home: he's a lunatic who reflects poorly on other gun owners (something readily apparent BEFORE this thread) and were it in my power I would strip him of his firearm privileges.

He also reflects poorly on other Kentuckians. He Went to a very different ccdw class than I did. He's sicker than most.

 

[jpeyton]

This story was posted on a firearms forum I frequent.

The consensus there is roughly the same. People are straddling the fence on this one. The homeowner made enough glaring errors in his conduct to warrant jail time, but there aren't any tears being shed over the thieves.

Anyone who owns a firearm in a home defense capacity should remember that you should fire center mass until your magazine is empty if you can safely do so. This isn't like the movies where you're popping off headshots or double taps; you keep firing from the initial shot until your slide or bolt locks back.

If the homeowner remembered that, he would be sitting at home watching sitcoms and eating a TV dinner.

 

[RampantAndroid]

He also reflects poorly on other Kentuckians. He Went to a very different ccdw class than I did. He's sicker than most.

No surprises there. I seem to remember a court case within the last year - some guy complained about a loud party, stood in someone else's driveway, and in the end shot and killed a guy some distance away and called it "self defense" when the video he had taken himself showed it was anything but defense. But he kept using the terms "in fear of my life" and such. In other words, he knew enough to know what the words and phrases were, but not the meanings behind them. The guy was convicted in the end, IIRC. Spidey reminds me of that guy, because I bet you that one day I'll see a news article about spidey having murdered someone in "defense."

This story was posted on a firearms forum I frequent.

The consensus there is roughly the same. People are straddling the fence on this one. The homeowner made enough glaring errors in his conduct to warrant jail time, but there aren't any tears being shed over the thieves.

Anyone who owns a firearm in a home defense capacity should remember that you should fire center mass until your magazine is empty if you can safely do so. This isn't like the movies where you're popping off headshots or double taps; you keep firing from the initial shot until your slide or bolt locks back.

If the homeowner remembered that, he would be sitting at home watching sitcoms and eating a TV dinner.

I don't call that sitting on the fence, I call it standing a distance away and seeing the lawns on both sides of the fence are completely dead, with no green at all.

 

[spidey07]

Sorry, but I'm going to keep doing it to drive the point home: he's a lunatic who reflects poorly on other gun owners (something readily apparent BEFORE this thread) and were it in my power I would strip him of his firearm privileges.





All laws I see in KY refer to 503.055. In KY, all I see with regards to force are: You may fire to prevent someone evicting you unlawfully, stealing, using force against you in a felony act, committing arson, trying to rape you...so on and so forth. Nowhere in these laws do I see any reference to being able to fire upon someone who is in your home but has not given you reason to fear for your life.

I've not looked, but I might later tonight - I seem to remember in WA pointing a gun at someone without reason is alone a felony offense.

Put simply, you pointed to a subsection of KY laws that ONLY covered the use of NONLETHAL FORCE. I had to quote the section on lethal force FOR YOU. So either you're just sloppy, or you actually thought that allowable force equated to lethal force (and thus clearly didn't read the entire section of KY law.)

There's a difference here: if someone happens to be on your lawn letting their dog crap, you cannot shoot them. There's no reasonable fear for your life. But hey, you're anything but reasonable it seems.

If they are in the home unlawfully then they are presumed to be a threat and you may shoot. That's the key, the legal presumption of the threat just by them being in the home unlawfully. This mostly applies to if they ENTER illegally or by force or are ATTEMPTING to enter by force. Meaning if they are trying to break in you can shoot before they cross the threshold, once they cross the threshold they are fair game legally.

There have been many cases this has applied to, no charges filed. Trying to break in and they haven't crossed the threshold? You can shoot before they cross the threshold. Once they cross the threshold you can shoot as well. There needs to be no threat to life or person, they are legally presumed to be an automatic threat and you may shoot.

Here you go:

503.055 Use of defensive force regarding dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle -- Exceptions.
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

 

[OutHouse]

Colorado Castle Doctrine. sorry Spidey but KY laws suck compared to CO laws.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Colorado-Gun-Control-Laws.htm

Castle Doctrine

Colorado has a castle law. The statute states that “any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.”

http://abcnews.go.com/US/drunk-woma...ples-home-shot/story?id=16435998#.ULYn_oZXaEA

A drunk woman will be charged with felony trespassing after she wandered into a couple's home in Boulder, Colo. on Wednesday, the Boulder District Attorney's Office said Friday.

Recent University of Colorado Boulder college graduate Zoey Ripple, 21, was unarmed and intoxicated when she entered the multimillion dollar home of Doreen Orion and Timothy Justice through an unlocked screen door on Wednesday night.

The couple called 911 after Ripple walked into their bedroom, they screamed at her to leave, and then fired a single shot at her, which hit her in the hip, when she continued to walk into the room.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/tha...male-intruder-initially-thought-to-be-animal/

BEFORE YOU GET ALL HAPPY, NOTE THEY TOLD HER TO STOP AND SHE DID NOT STOP SHE CONTINUED TOWARD THE COUPLE THAT WAS STILL IN BED AND THEN GOT SHOT.

 

[spidey07]

Colorado Castle Doctirne.

That's castle doctrine lite. It's missing the big teeth of castle doctrine - the presumption that simply by entering the home illegally the home owner is presumed to have a reasonable fear of life automatically. One mustn't wait for any kind of threat, they are automatically a threat simply by being in the home illegally.

 

[ichy]

It's very sad for those kids

No, it's not sad. They were low life junkies and criminals. Not everyone's life has value.

 

[OutHouse]

That's castle doctrine lite. It's missing the big teeth of castle doctrine - the presumption that simply by entering the home illegally the home owner is presumed to have a reasonable fear of life automatically. One mustn't wait for any kind of threat, they are automatically a threat simply by being in the home illegally.

did you miss this?

occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.”

 

[spidey07]

did you miss this?

occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.”

No, it still holds the reasonable belief standard. That's why it's castle doctrine lite.

Converse that with "presumed to have a reasonable belief". In colorado one would have to reasonably believe there was a credible threat. In many other states including mine you do NOT have to reasonably believe they are a threat - they are automatically a threat by law and the reasonable belief standard does NOT apply. By law you are PRESUMED to reasonably believe the threat exists.

HUGE difference.

 

[jackstar7]

After the sixth time being broken into... doesn't it make more sense to just get some bars on the windows and some better locks?

 

[pontifex]

who the fuck laughs after your cousin was just shot and killed and you've just been shot??

wtf is up with that?


anyway, guy was justified to shoot initially but going on to continuously shoot after they were disabled is wrong.

waiting to call the police is wrong too. should have done that immediately.

 

[TheVrolok]

Guy deserves prison time. You simply can't execute incapacitated intruders.

 

[gothamhunter]

If they are in the home unlawfully then they are presumed to be a threat and you may shoot. That's the key, the legal presumption of the threat just by them being in the home unlawfully. This mostly applies to if they ENTER illegally or by force or are ATTEMPTING to enter by force. Meaning if they are trying to break in you can shoot before they cross the threshold, once they cross the threshold they are fair game legally.

There have been many cases this has applied to, no charges filed. Trying to break in and they haven't crossed the threshold? You can shoot before they cross the threshold. Once they cross the threshold you can shoot as well. There needs to be no threat to life or person, they are legally presumed to be an automatic threat and you may shoot.

Here you go:

Spidey's got you on this one.

 

[gothamhunter]

No, it's not sad. They were low life junkies and criminals. Not everyone's life has value.

At that age, everyone has a chance to turn their life around; so I do find it sad for them to have died. I'm not saddened by the circumstances that caused it, however, since it's their own fault.

 

[CitizenKain]

After the sixth time being broken into... doesn't it make more sense to just get some bars on the windows and some better locks?

Probably because that never happened, he likely made it up to sound more sympathetic to the police.

 

[SheHateMe]

I hope he goes down. Yes, they broke into his house...but he pretty much slaughtered them. Especially what he did to the female. I don't care what "Stand Your Ground" bullcrap you can pull up..when you shoot someone multiple times and then finish them off by putting a gun under their chin and blowing their brains out...you need to be off the streets.

 

[Todd33]

amddude, Bateluer, BlitzPuppet, D1gger, dabuddha, dbailey, DixyCrat, footballrunner800, Geosurface, ghost recon88, gothamhunter, gw186, Harrod, HybridSquirrel, ichy, Jadow, jlarsson, jolancer, jpeyton, Juddog, JulesMaximus, Jumpem, Kalvin00, KB, KevinCU, lamedude, Lizardman, Lobotomized, M0oG0oGaiPan, mattpegher, Maximilian, MaxPayne63, mcveigh, Miklebud, mizzou, nehalem256, Newbian, Northern Lawn, OlafSicky, otho11, PingviN, PowerRanger, PowerYoga, Pr0d1gy, RampantAndroid, rky60, Saint Nick, schneiderguy, Sepen, Sixguns, spidey07, Sulaco, surfsatwerk, theshad, ussfletcher, WilliamM2, WiseUp216, Zivic

So far these sociopaths have said yes. Of course a lot of them are instantly famous for being right wing loonies.

 

[irishScott]

So far these sociopaths have said yes. Of course a lot of them are instantly famous for being right wing loonies.

You do understand that stupid poll is stupid right? This is a troll poll.

The shooting was justified. The execution was not. That's the all but universal consensus in this thread.

 

[DCal430]

Time to execute this sack of shit. Shoot him in the head and be done with it.

 

[DCal430]

Honestly I think Spidey would gleefully gun down a 10 year old girl who jumps into his backyard to retrieve an errant ball. Sick fucker really.

 

[ichy]

I hope he goes down. Yes, they broke into his house...but he pretty much slaughtered them.

If more burglars were slaughtered we'd have a lot fewer burglaries!

 

[DCal430]

Spidey do you have fantasies about gunning people down, gunning down little kids even.

 

[spidey07]

Spidey do you have fantasies about gunning people down, gunning down little kids even.

I hope I never, ever have to fire in self defense but I am mentally prepared for it and train monthly. If I ever have to point my weapon at somebody and pull the trigger - it will be their choice, and not mine.

 

[SheHateMe]

He can stand his ground all he wants....in Prison.

I bet Spidey condoned the shooting of the Seafood Salesman that had the misfortune of coming to the wrong house and being gunned down in the front yard for ...being in the yard.