Got what he deserved ??

[K191145]

At any point, if you can be shown to no longer have had a reasonable fear of death/serious injury, the initial presumption of that can be reversed.

 

There was a case a few years ago here where a fellow shot some burglar and then the perp made it into another room closing the door.  The guy then shot through the door some and finally opened the door and shot him some more. Charged with murder 2 I believe, dunno that I ever heard the outcome.

 

Say a perp falls to his knees and puts his hands in the air, then you go right up to him and put one in his forehead. If proven, that could certainly sting you. Or worse, Monkey's scenario as actually going as far as tying the guy up first. Or even capping off a good shoot with a final close one with the powder burns and blood splatter to indicate it, whatever.

 

Obviously, would take some pretty clear forensics or witnesses for that sort of thing to come back on you, but it could. As Monkey said, each situation can be unique in some way.

 

But his main point is valid, that the "castle law" is no more carte blanche to be judge and executioner than using deadly force anywhere else,  it's only to save your life and limb while you had a reasonable fear of losing it. And it's not ultimately your call as to whether your actions were indeed "reasonable".

 

- OS

 

Unless there's pretty obvious evidence that the homeowner knew the threat was over it would/should be hard for a prosecutor to prove the home owner acted improperly. They were not there and didn't have to go through the fear the home owner did. Even a shot in the back as far as the homeowner is concerned is still stopping a potential threat. One thing there's no meter for is the amount of fear a home owner has for their life. With their back turned they can very easily turn back around with a gun in their hands.

[Oh Shoot]

Unless there's pretty obvious evidence that the homeowner knew the threat was over it would/should be hard for a prosecutor to prove the home owner acted improperly....

 

That's what I said. Folks' own testimony has provided it, though, was just watching an account of a case not long ago of a guy who mentioned "putting one more into him to finish him off" while perp was on the floor. I guess he was one of those "if he's in my home I can kill him period" thinking guys.

 

- OS

Edited December 11, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[K191145]

That's what I said. Folks' own testimony has provided it, though, was just watching an account of a case not long ago of a guy who mentioned "putting one more into him to finish him off" while perp was on the floor. I guess he was one of those "if he's in my home I can kill him period" thinking guys.

 

- OS

 

Well yea, that was pretty stupid for him to mention that, i'm not going to execute someone, if they are down and I can see their hands they aren't a threat anymore. I remember the pharmacist in Oklahoma who shot the armed robber on camera, left the scene for a minute, came back and shot him again on the floor. I think he was arrested for murder. Unless the robber was getting back up with a gun in hand he did a stupid thing, now I believe you couldn't see what the robber was doing on the tape. I guess it's a good idea to kick any weapon away from the down perp if you can.

[Sunfish]

Shoot until they are down. Cooperate with Authority's but do not make any statement before hiring an attorney. Keep your mouth shut