Jump to content

Home owner shoots burglar


BiggO

Recommended Posts

Where does the castle law come in on this? Or did they do away with that?

Castle Doctrine is good, and applies to this case. Before it was enacted if you shot someone in your house the burden of proof was on you that you acted in self defense. Also you could be required to prove that you tried to retreat.

The Castle Doctrine just removes the burden of proof from you and the duty to retreat...and IF the person entering your house was committing a crime then the court must automatically assume that the shooting was in self defense.

However, the prosecutor still has the opportunity to prove otherwise. So the Castle Doctrine isn't a license to kill anyone that walks into your home. The same rules apply, just the burden of proof is shifted to the prosecution. He will be pretty hard pressed to do that in this case. Two dudes enter the house to commit robbery and one of them has a gun. So they entered to commit a crime and a reasonable person would fear life and limb with an armed robber in their house.

This was a slam dunk clean shoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just ask "what are your intents", as you click your safety off...

If this is in regards to asking yourself this question, my only intent is "tap-tap...tap-tap" (I'm a strong believer in the double "double-tap")

If this is what I should be asking the person entering my home, forcing me to be in a position where I must take the safety off my weapon, then no. I will be telling them to get on the ground, and not opening a conversation.

"Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don't have a gun, freedom of speech has no power." Yoshimi Ishikawa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Castle Doctrine is good, and applies to this case. Before it was enacted if you shot someone in your house the burden of proof was on you that you acted in self defense. Also you could be required to prove that you tried to retreat.

The Castle Doctrine just removes the burden of proof from you and the duty to retreat...and IF the person entering your house was committing a crime then the court must automatically assume that the shooting was in self defense.

However, the prosecutor still has the opportunity to prove otherwise. So the Castle Doctrine isn't a license to kill anyone that walks into your home. The same rules apply, just the burden of proof is shifted to the prosecution. He will be pretty hard pressed to do that in this case. Two dudes enter the house to commit robbery and one of them has a gun. So they entered to commit a crime and a reasonable person would fear life and limb with an armed robber in their house.

This was a slam dunk clean shoot.

This cannot be emphasized enough: The criminal law change changed it from an affirmative defense (you (the homeowner) are guilty until you prove yourself innocent) to a legal presumption against the bad guy.

"Castle", as adopted by Ohio in September 2008, also introduced a civil reform which, in layman's terms, states "if you are committing a crime and get hurt, it's your own damn fault". Whether or not you (the bad guy) are charged with a crime, if you get hurt (injured, shot, killed, whatevs) while committing the crime you have no civil cause of action against anyone for the harm you suffered.

We've all read/heard about the criminal falling down a chimney, or cutting himself on the window he just broke, and suing the homeowner. No more. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had an interesting talk at my barber shop about this yesterday. Everyone in the room was all about shooting anyone who broke into their house, except one guy. He starts in with this story about a buddy of his that went bankrupt trying to get out of charges for killing a burglar in his home 12 years ago. I told this guy that was before the Castle Law was accepted in Ohio. He said it didn't matter. So I asked if he was a judge or a attorney, and he said no, but he is an NRA instructor. Couldn't believe that an NRA instructor had that kind of opinion!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had an interesting talk at my barber shop about this yesterday. Everyone in the room was all about shooting anyone who broke into their house, except one guy. He starts in with this story about a buddy of his that went bankrupt trying to get out of charges for killing a burglar in his home 12 years ago. I told this guy that was before the Castle Law was accepted in Ohio. He said it didn't matter. So I asked if he was a judge or a attorney, and he said no, but he is an NRA instructor. Couldn't believe that an NRA instructor had that kind of opinion!

Most NRA instructors I've talked to have a similar opinion even after Castle Law in Ohio. I've run into very few personally that are of the immediately shoot someone breaking in types.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...