Taurus Firearm Forum banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,098 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The case appears to be the latest example of a shooting that falls under Missouri's castle doctrine law.


Under the castle doctrine, people who encounter an intruder in their homes or vehicles — or on their property, under a more recent expansion of the law — are given more leeway in using deadly force.


The law allows you to use that force without fear of being charged or sued.


People in Missouri can repel intruders on the theory that anyone breaking into an occupied home has evil intentions toward the residents, said Kevin Jamison, a lawyer from Gladstone, Mo., who lobbied for Missouri's castle doctrine bill as a member of the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance. The law now covers you even if you fend off a carjacker or confront an intruder in your tent in the woods.

Even if - even if!?!? If you're going to write about a long standing law don't act surprised just because it is the first time that YOU'VE read it. This is the same law that allows anyone 21 and older to carry in their car without a CCW permit.

In my home, middle of the night = evil intentions, YOU BET. Shove past me at the door at 1am and start a "scuffle". Time to protect my home and family - DER!?!?

Story here: STLtoday : Drunken intruder shot by resident in Tower Grove South
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,174 Posts
I agree fully. If you are in my home,car or other private property.. You will be found dead. That is all..
 
  • Like
Reactions: mingaa

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,793 Posts
How we ever got to a point where an intruder had more rights than the owner of private property I'll never know. I'm convinced whoever came up with the idea that the homeowner has a duty to retreat on his own property was suffering from some acute brain damage.

Civil cases where an intruder or trespasser injured himself while illegally on someone else's property, because there were conditions on that property deemed dangerous, are mind-boggling. How any judge can allow those cases to go forward is unbelievable. They try to say "Crime doesn't pay.". Well, those are literally cases of crime paying.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,171 Posts
The case appears to be the latest example of a shooting that falls under Missouri's castle doctrine law.


Under the castle doctrine, people who encounter an intruder in their homes or vehicles — or on their property, under a more recent expansion of the law — are given more leeway in using deadly force.


The law allows you to use that force without fear of being charged or sued.


People in Missouri can repel intruders on the theory that anyone breaking into an occupied home has evil intentions toward the residents, said Kevin Jamison, a lawyer from Gladstone, Mo., who lobbied for Missouri's castle doctrine bill as a member of the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance. The law now covers you even if you fend off a carjacker or confront an intruder in your tent in the woods.

Even if - even if!?!? If you're going to write about a long standing law don't act surprised just because it is the first time that YOU'VE read it. This is the same law that allows anyone 21 and older to carry in their car without a CCW permit.

In my home, middle of the night = evil intentions, YOU BET. Shove past me at the door at 1am and start a "scuffle". Time to protect my home and family - DER!?!?

Story here: STLtoday : Drunken intruder shot by resident in Tower Grove South
It sounds similar to the way it is here.

If you are breaking into anyones house/apartment/tent/whatever, can you seriously claim good intentions! "we'll your honor, that plasma screen tv was costing the home owner too much in electricity so I decided to take it to save them on their electric bill..."
 
  • Like
Reactions: darbo and mingaa

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,171 Posts
How we ever got to a point where an intruder had more rights than the owner of private property I'll never know. I'm convinced whoever came up with the idea that the homeowner has a duty to retreat on his own property was suffering from some acute brain damage.

Civil cases where an intruder or trespasser injured himself while illegally on someone else's property, because there were conditions on that property deemed dangerous, are mind-boggling. How any judge can allow those cases to go forward is unbelievable. They try to say "Crime doesn't pay.". Well, those are literally cases of crime paying.
I think it really depends on where you live.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mingaa

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,024 Posts
The case appears to be the latest example of a shooting that falls under Missouri's castle doctrine law.


Under the castle doctrine, people who encounter an intruder in their homes or vehicles — or on their property, under a more recent expansion of the law — are given more leeway in using deadly force.


The law allows you to use that force without fear of being charged or sued.


People in Missouri can repel intruders on the theory that anyone breaking into an occupied home has evil intentions toward the residents, said Kevin Jamison, a lawyer from Gladstone, Mo., who lobbied for Missouri's castle doctrine bill as a member of the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance. The law now covers you even if you fend off a carjacker or confront an intruder in your tent in the woods.

Even if - even if!?!? If you're going to write about a long standing law don't act surprised just because it is the first time that YOU'VE read it. This is the same law that allows anyone 21 and older to carry in their car without a CCW permit.

In my home, middle of the night = evil intentions, YOU BET. Shove past me at the door at 1am and start a "scuffle". Time to protect my home and family - DER!?!?

Story here: STLtoday : Drunken intruder shot by resident in Tower Grove South
Pretty much same Here.but,Its gotta be a good shoot, probably like any state with a simular doctrine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,098 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
How we ever got to a point where an intruder had more rights than the owner of private property I'll never know. I'm convinced whoever came up with the idea that the homeowner has a duty to retreat on his own property was suffering from some acute brain damage.

Civil cases where an intruder or trespasser injured himself while illegally on someone else's property, because there were conditions on that property deemed dangerous, are mind-boggling. How any judge can allow those cases to go forward is unbelievable. They try to say "Crime doesn't pay.". Well, those are literally cases of crime paying.
In Missouri the law allows you to use that force without fear of being charged or sued. This is the way it ought to be nationally.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,098 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 · (Edited)
Pretty much same Here.but,Its gotta be a good shoot, probably like any state with a simular doctrine.
True - there was a case recently where a homeowner tried to hold the invader for the police to arrive. The invader turned for the door trying to escape THEN the homeowner shot him. Nope. Bad shoot - he was not threatened and he's probably headed to jail and will never own a gun again. I hate to say it but if he'd shot the guy immediately on discovery he'd be back on the sofa with popcorn today.

Detaining someone is testy business, get them on the ground face down and try and cuff them - at the final moment most will take a last attempt to NOT be held. Now you are right on a desperate man, your weapon is exposed and you are working one handed at best. Tazer, cuffs and Zip ties? Not sure what I'd do if the initial contact passed and we were in a standoff - pull the trigger FTF and 'say the words'?!?!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,793 Posts
I think it really depends on where you live.
Which is problematic to say the least. I think the vast majority of folks, regardless of where they live, naturally assume they have a right to protect themselves and their loved ones on their own property.

They assume that because it's common sense. Sadly, common sense and the lawmaking in some states have been going in polar opposite directions for decades.

In Georgia, we've always been allowed to carry a loaded gun in our car, because a vehicle was defined as an extension of your home, also private property.

Back in the day, you just had to have it visible to a LE officer in the event you got pulled over, unless you had a CCW. Now you can have it anywhere in your car... I guess because having it always visible risks theft, and because if one's car and one's home are considered the same private property, then owners should be able to store their weapon wherever they want.

Cross over into Alabama, though, and it's an entirely different story. You can't carry a gun in your car at all without a Pistol Permit (CCW), even unloaded in its original box in the trunk. I've had both police and gun shop owners tell me that, while rare, if you don't have a carry permit, you are still technically breaking the law and can be charged if you go to Bass Pro, buy a new hunting rifle, and then drive that gun home. In fact, strictly speaking, once you leave that store, possession of the gun is against the law; and you could be locked up walking it from the store to your vehicle. The absolute only place you can be in possession of a firearm without a CCW is your own house.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,098 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Which is problematic to say the least. I think the vast majority of folks, regardless of where they live, naturally assume they have a right to protect themselves and their loved ones on their own property.

They assume that because it's common sense. Sadly, common sense and the lawmaking in some states have been going in polar opposite directions for decades.

In Georgia, we've always been allowed to carry a loaded gun in our car, because a vehicle was defined as an extension of your home, also private property.

Back in the day, you just had to have it visible to a LE officer in the event you got pulled over, unless you had a CCW. Now you can have it anywhere in your car... I guess because having it always visible risks theft, and because if one's car and one's home are considered the same private property, then owners should be able to store their weapon wherever they want.

Cross over into Alabama, though, and it's an entirely different story. You can't carry a gun in your car at all without a Pistol Permit (CCW), even unloaded in its original box in the trunk. I've had both police and gun shop owners tell me that, while rare, if you don't have a carry permit, you are still technically breaking the law and can be charged if you go to Bass Pro, buy a new hunting rifle, and then drive that gun home. In fact, strictly speaking, once you leave that store, possession of the gun is against the law; and you could be locked up walking it from the store to your vehicle. The absolute only place you can be in possession of a firearm without a CCW is your own house.
How would then use this 'hunting' rifle? Shoot deer from the home window?

That one needs revisiting for sure?!
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
42,817 Posts
From the Texas Doctrine.

(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.

How about being protected by Castle anywhere you have a legal right to be?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,098 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Forbes "AMERICA'S FASTEST GROWING CITIES"

Perhaps not surprisingly, cities in Texas — which welcomed more than 427,000 newcomers from August 2011 to July 2012, according to the U.S. Census Bureau — dominated our list. Houston ranked second, behind Austin, followed by Dallas in third place and San Antonio in ninth. Robust labor markets, unemployment rates under 6% (well below the national average),no state income tax, a business-friendly regulatory environment, and strong population inflows all contributed to Texas towns’ high rankings....

Article:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/morganbrennan/2013/01/23/americas-fastest-growing-cities/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
851 Posts
Interesting section of the Kentucky Castle doctrine laws. Full link http://tinyurl.com/a6fapod


Civil liability
Further, KRS 503.085 creates potential civil liability for officers who arrest a suspect
claiming legal justification for their action. If the suspect’s justification ultimately is accepted by

the court or the case is dismissed, the suspect may sue the officers for false arrest. This is an
issue that apparently is not well understood by the law enforcement community. Due to the
newness of the law, Kentucky does not have any reported court cases that provide guidance on
how the statute should be applied.
All officers need to be familiar with the changes created by the Castle Doctrine to KRS
Chapter 503. Caution is the byword in responding to deadly force cases where the suspect is
claiming justification under the new laws. It is recommended that law enforcement agencies
discuss the matter with their legal advisors and local prosecutors now to be prepared to deal with
such cases before they arise.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top