Another good guy with a gun

Posted By: Irving_D Another good guy with a gun - 06/14/22

How to resolve the no cash bail problem.

Good deal. Glad homeowner wasn't injured.

Good for him!

That woman's an idiot. Castle Doctrine had nothing at all to do with anything. That was straight up self-defense analysis. The intended victim was armed as he had a right to be. The other guy drew a gun on the intended victim. The intended victim (having done nothing wrong) beat him to the draw and won the gunfight.

Michigan
Good thing he’s black

Classic example of when seconds count, police are minutes away.

It was a clean shoot. 100% self defence. the other guy attemped to draw first. Although some idiot in an office somewhere will probably say he just should have waited in his house until the leo's showed up, and only defended himself if the bad guy entered the house.

Originally Posted by jc189

It was a clean shoot. 100% self defence. the other guy attemped to draw first. Although some idiot in an office somewhere will probably say he just should have waited in his house until the leo's showed up, and only defended himself if the bad guy entered the house.

It comes down to whether or not you have a right to confront a nut on your property, screaming and breaking your window. If yes, then he's fine. I don't know of any law that says you aren't allowed to confront someone making a ruckus and smashing stuff on your property.

Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye

That woman's an idiot. Castle Doctrine had nothing at all to do with anything. That was straight up self-defense analysis. The intended victim was armed as he had a right to be. The other guy drew a gun on the intended victim. The intended victim (having done nothing wrong) beat him to the draw and won the gunfight.

Actually, the Castle Doctrine has lots to do with that.

It means you can defend your property, and have no legal duty to retreat. In states that don't have that, the victim has a legal duty to run away before deploying deadly force.

Quote

Castle Doctrine is similar to “stand your ground,” but is typically limited to real property, including a person’s home, property and, in some states, cars or workplaces. The concept is that an individual has a right to be safe and secure within his or her own home or “castle” and should not have to retreat from his or her home in order to be safe. Depending on the state, an individual may have the right to protect himself or herself, other people, and his or her property by force — in some instances even employing deadly force against intruders without retreating.

Originally Posted by rockinbbar

Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye

That woman's an idiot. Castle Doctrine had nothing at all to do with anything. That was straight up self-defense analysis. The intended victim was armed as he had a right to be. The other guy drew a gun on the intended victim. The intended victim (having done nothing wrong) beat him to the draw and won the gunfight.

Actually, the Castle Doctrine has lots to do with that.

It means you can defend your property, and have no legal duty to retreat. In states that don't have that, the victim has a legal duty to run away before deploying deadly force.

Quote

Castle Doctrine is similar to “stand your ground,” but is typically limited to real property, including a person’s home, property and, in some states, cars or workplaces. The concept is that an individual has a right to be safe and secure within his or her own home or “castle” and should not have to retreat from his or her home in order to be safe. Depending on the state, an individual may have the right to protect himself or herself, other people, and his or her property by force — in some instances even employing deadly force against intruders without retreating.

Good point, but the reason I say it's a non-issue in this case is that there was no opportunity to retreat. When someone draws a gun on you with intent to use it, you cannot outrun a bullet, so even if there was no castle doctrine, you'd have a right to draw and fire under any law in the land where you are permitted to be armed. In fact, even in a place like New York, you might find that you're charged with illegal possession of a weapon, but still not be charged with murder, due to the straight up self-defense circumstances of the case, castle doctrine or no castle doctrine.

Castle doctrine applies where you are aware of a deadly threat in advance, and have time to escape. Places without castle doctrine require you to even exit the house, if need be. But even where there's no castle doctrine, you can investigate folks making a ruckus in your yard, and if they draw on you, you can shoot them in self defense, because you cannot outrun a bullet.

I've seen a few cases where someone didn't run and hide, in places that didn't have the Castle Doctrine. One in particular was charged with murder.

That is sickening.

What right do the police have to enter his house?

Has the dead man's mother chimed in yet? I'm sure she thinks that man had no business shooting her son. After all the police were coming and he shot the man 4 times. He didn't need to shoot 4 times, should be charged with murder she will say.

Originally Posted by Hastings

Has the dead man's mother chimed in yet? I'm sure she thinks that man had no business shooting her son. After all the police were coming and he shot the man 4 times. He didn't need to shoot 4 times, should be charged with murder she will say.

He could have shot the gun out of his hand, instead.

Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye

Originally Posted by Hastings

Has the dead man's mother chimed in yet? I'm sure she thinks that man had no business shooting her son. After all the police were coming and he shot the man 4 times. He didn't need to shoot 4 times, should be charged with murder she will say.

He could have shot the gun out of his hand, instead.

He should've fired 2 shotgun blasts in the air.....

I'm glad the good guy won.

Why the HECK is he talking to a reporter?